<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (9) TMI 1674 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461161</link>
    <description>ITAT Chennai quashed assessment orders under section 153A following SC precedent and CBDT instructions. The tribunal dismissed revenue&#039;s appeals across multiple assessment years (2010-13), upholding CIT(A)&#039;s deletions of various additions including special salary commission charges, TDS disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) for contractor payments, bought note purchase additions, cash purchase disallowances under section 40A(3), and suppressed purchase/closing stock additions. The tribunal found the assessing officer&#039;s methodology flawed, noting payments were made through RTGS to agents, not cash, and that purchase comparisons used incorrect timeframes (11 vs 12 months), leading to erroneous additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1674 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461161</link>
      <description>ITAT Chennai quashed assessment orders under section 153A following SC precedent and CBDT instructions. The tribunal dismissed revenue&#039;s appeals across multiple assessment years (2010-13), upholding CIT(A)&#039;s deletions of various additions including special salary commission charges, TDS disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) for contractor payments, bought note purchase additions, cash purchase disallowances under section 40A(3), and suppressed purchase/closing stock additions. The tribunal found the assessing officer&#039;s methodology flawed, noting payments were made through RTGS to agents, not cash, and that purchase comparisons used incorrect timeframes (11 vs 12 months), leading to erroneous additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>