The Tribunal held that determining exemption eligibility after retrospective registration is not a simple computational adjustment. Such matters cannot be decided at the return processing stage under section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that mere non-response to notices issued to vendors cannot justify disallowance of large business expenses when documentary evidence and accepted turnover exist. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court quashed the reassessment for being based on a change of opinion, the additions made in those proceedings could not survive.
The ITAT Chennai held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Additions based only on special audit findings were therefore quashed.
ITAT held that the appellate authority wrongly dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) as there was no advance tax liability under Section 209. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee is needs to establish the expenditure which is unreasonably high. Thus, additional evidence filed for expense pertaining to ‘shortage and quality cuts’ needs complete verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
The Tribunal held that payment for cement shortage during transport arose from contractual obligation and was compensatory in nature. As no statutory violation was established, deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed.
Arulcheyal Kainkarrya Sabha Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Chennai) The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, arose from the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Chennai, rejecting the assessee trust’s applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is […]
The Tribunal clarified that dismissal of an SLP does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141. It distinguished prior rulings and held that defective penalty notices invalidate the levy.
The Tribunal emphasized 33%–40% value addition at the UTK unit and scientific assembly processes to conclude that real manufacturing took place. It directed deletion of disallowances made across five assessment years.
