This half-yearly round-up analytically summarizes the key direct tax decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reported at Taxscan.in during the first half of 2024.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80 C of Income Tax Act 1961 interest on housing loan property. In response to the demand raised in the order issued under Section 80 C of Income Tax Act 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the assessee lodged an appeal before the First Appellate Authority ( FAA ). However, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT ( A ).
The single bench of the tribunal comprising George George K ( Vice President ) found that for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the income tax return was filed manually on 31.07.2008. During this period, the assessee had resigned from a previous job and joined Microsoft Ltd, which was mentioned in the filed income tax return. The primary request in the current appeal is for the allowance of deductions under Section 80 c of Income Tax Act 1961 and for the interest on the housing loan.
Two member bench of ITAT Raipur granted the assessee’s right to file application for exemption under section 154 of Income Tax Act claiming deduction for delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/EPF.
The two member bench of the ITAT comprising of Arun Khodpia ( Accountant Member ) and Ravish Sood ( Judicial Member ) held that “ in terms of our aforesaid observations, set-aside the order passed by the CIT ( Appeals ) wherein he had upheld the order passed by the CPC/A.O u/s. 154 of the Act, and thus, declined the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/PF and vacate the addition of Rs.24,72,236/ made by the A.O.” The appeal made by the assessee was allowed. The bench granted the assessee’s right to file application for exemption under section 154 of Income Tax Act claiming deduction for delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/EPF.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that information found in the pen drive /laptop of employees cannot be considered as credible evidence and directed to delete the addition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessee was represented by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal and Shri K.C. Selvamani represented the respondent.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale held that the information found in the pen drive/laptop of employees cannot be considered credible evidence unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Accordingly, no credence could be given to the abstract entries made in the pen drive/laptop. The ITAT viewed that the AO could not have made additions based on that information. Accordingly, we confirm the decision of CIT(A) to delete the additions in both years for the reasons discussed above.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of unexplained investments based on the stock valuation difference. The assessee admitted the difference of Rs.1,04,00,600/- as income, which has to be taxed as ‘normal business income’ and not as ‘unexplained investment’ under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench of Shri Mahavir Singh, ( Vice President ) and Shri Manjunatha G, ( Accountant ) Member observed that the assessee has declared additional income towards excess stock found during the survey and the assessee has explained the source for excess stock found during the survey i.e., that it was out of income earned from current year business or earlier years business and surrendered the amount, the AO has not done anything to dispute the claim of the assessee that the source was not from the business income. Hence, the AO cannot apply the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad bench while deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that capital gain earned from sale of shares could not be held as bogus merely on the basis of a report unearthed in case of third parties.
The tribunal observed that the capital gain earned by the assessee as ultimately held bogus on the basis of a report unearthed in case of third party/parties has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench In case of Alpa Udaykumar Shah vs. ITO. Therefore the addition treating the long term capital gain earned by the assessee out of the sale of impugned shares of the company namely M/s Comfort Fincap Ltd. on the basis of report unearthed by any third party in the absence of any cogent material brought against the assessee is not sustainable in the eye of law. After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member ) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) held that capital gain earned from sale of shares could not be held as bogus merely on the basis of a report unearthed in case of third parties.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai while upheld the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the assessee failed to file Form No.10CCB along with the Return of Income.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manjunatha. G,( Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) held that the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction u/s.
80IC of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore bench deleted calculations made by AO on cost funds by applying a 15%flat ratio, the ad-hoc basis on interest income earned by cooperative society through providing credit facilities to its members.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of George George K, (Vice President) deleted calculations made by AO on cost funds by applying a 15%flat ratio, the ad-hoc basis on interest income earned through providing credit facilities to its members.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
Accordingly the tribunal determined that the property is deemed to have been acquired by the firm only and not by individual partners. This being so, the provisions of Sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) could not be pressed into service since these provisions do not apply to partnership firm at the relevant point of timeAfter reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,(Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) held that the Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore bench while upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of George George K, ( Vice President ) upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,(Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) held that the Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore bench while upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of George George K, ( Vice President ) upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench while allowing benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that levying/collecting fees for guarantee from Member Lending Institutions ( MLIs ) are not profit motive.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Rifaur Rahman, ( Accountant member ) and Kuldip Singh, ( Judicial Member ) held that levying/collecting fees for guarantee from Member Lending Institutions ( MLIs ) are not profit motive. Therefore the bench allowed the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai bench held that no addition should be made on the basis of outcome of confirmatory letters when assessee proved genuineness of business transactions.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant member and V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member deleted additions made merely on the basis of outcome of confirmatory letters. Venkata Raman, counsel appeared for assessee and V. Sreenivasan counsel appeared for revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench directed it to restrict to the extent of 50% of unexplained portion of cash and Gold bars received as gift from family in Navjote ceremony of son.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Rifaur Rahman, ( Accountant member) and Kuldip Singh, ( Judicial Member ) directed to restrict to the extent of 50% of unexplained portion of cash and Gold bars received as gift from family in Navjote ceremony of son.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench ruled that no addition should be made upon the employee who acts on behalf of the directors of the company.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant member) and Kuldip Singh, (Judicial Member) held that no addition should be made upon the employee who acts on behalf of the directors of the company.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench directed the deposit cost of Rs 51,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund( PMNRF ) within the 30 days due to delay in filing appeal before the Income Tax Department.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Padmavathy S ( Accountant member ) and Amit Shukla,( Judicial Member ) remand the issue to the file of commissioner and directed the deposit cost of Rs 51,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund( PMNRF ) within the 30 days Devendra Jain, counsel appeared for assessee and Harshad S. Vengurkar counsel appeared for revenue
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Observed that allows deduction under Section 80- IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 for car parking income, Health club income, food court income and Interest income
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharat ( Judicial member ) and Shmim Yahya ( Account member ) observed that in the case of M/s. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd. has allowed u/S 80- IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 deduction in similar circumstances by holding that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by Supreme Court judgment in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. Vs. CIT ( 2016 ) In the same order, ITAT has allowed deduction towards u/S 80-IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 towards car parking rental in favor of the assessee. The bench finds that the above instances are assessee’s group cases and cover the issue in favor of the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/S 80-IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 towards car parking income, income from health club, income from food court and interest income. This issue is decided in favor of the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench while sustaining the revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 held that the assessment was completed in a routine and mechanical manner without due diligence and due application of mind .
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of S. Rifaur Rahman(Accountant mber)and Narender Kumar Choudhry,(Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench ruled that no addition should be made under Section 68 of the income Tax Act , 1961 on the basis of statement of third party with respect to sale of shares carried through proper banking channel.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of S. Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Narender Kumar Choudhry,( Judicial Member ) held that no addition should be made under Section 68 of the income Tax Act , 1961 on the basis of statement of third party with respect to sale of shares carried through proper banking channel.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench directed readjudication with respect to contracts and bills of client code modification (CCM)carried out by brokers and assessees.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of Narender Kumar Choudhry,(Judicial Member)remand the file to the Assessing Officer for determination of entries in the client code were made as per the contracts and bills of brokers and Assessee has no knowledge of changes made and neither made any payment nor receive any payment for the trade form the broker
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Punitive damages is not allowable as expenditure
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising M.Bala Ganesh (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) concluded that ground with its sub-grounds was decided in favor of the assessee to the extent that except for the punitive damages of Rs.25 lakhs, the remaining disallowances are not sustained. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed partly. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 194 C of Income Tax 1961 was applicable on Common Area Maintenance ( CAM ) charges
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial member ) and N.k Billaiya ( Account member ) had ruled that payments were Common Area Maintenance ( CAM ) charges, not rent, emphasizing their independence from rental payments
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench, while upholding the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observed that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of Hotel Business income.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) and Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) upheld the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to failing to produce documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of Hotel Business income. Rituja Pawar Deswal, counsel for the assessee, and P.D. Chogule, counsel for revenue, was present during the proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench directed readjudication due to the failure to produce documents concerning the loan transaction and the purchase and pledge of shares.
After considering the submissions of both parties, the two-member bench of S Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) remanded the case to the file of AO with a direction to consider the documents. Malav P Sheth, counsel for the assessee, and Ujjawal Kumar, counsel for revenue, appeared during the proceedings. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Sale Without Purchase is Invalid, as it was evident that the accounting is complete only by taking into account both sides of the transactions. The ITAT deleted the addition under the Income Tax Act, of 1961 on Bogus Purchase.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member observed that the additions made by the AO are not only erroneous but are also contrary to directions of DRP.The exclusion of purchases from the trading results is not permissible without the corresponding exclusion of the sales in such trading activity for arriving at a fair and balanced view. The ITAT directed the AO to reverse the additions made and restore the position taken by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that failure to make a note in file of person searched does not vitiate proceedings under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Madhumitha Roy ( Judicial member ) and Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) observed that Failure by the Assessing Officer of the searched individual to document this transmission in the searched individual’s file, despite sending the satisfaction note and documents to the Assessing Officer of the other person, will not invalidate the proceedings under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the other person. However, it’s mandatory for the satisfaction note to affirm that the seized documents from the searched individual pertain to the other person and to transmit such materials to the Assessing Officer of the other person.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the deletion of disallowance on deduction in respect of wealth tax paid.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T Varkey ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith Singh ( Account member ) observed that in the case of the taxpayer for Assessment Year 1998-99, the ITAT, following the precedent set by coordinate benches, concluded that the wealth tax paid by the taxpayer was not subject to disallowance. In alignment with the decisions of the coordinate benches, the Assessing Officer was instructed to remove the disallowance.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) observed that the amount received as per Article 12(3) of India- United State of America (USA) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)., not royalty u/s 9(1) (vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S.Pannu ( Vice President) and Saktijit Dey ( Vice President) concluded that the remuneration received by the assessee does not meet the criteria for royalty under both section 9(1)(vi) ) of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, instruct the Assessing Officer to remove the additions for both disputed assessment years.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Income from other sources due to duplicate entries found in Form 26AS.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Saktijit Dey ( Vice president ) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar ( Accountant member ) made the decision to remove the addition of Rs. 27,26,225 under the category of “income from other sources.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that No claim for weighted deduction on donation can be claimed under Section 35(1) (ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member ) concluded that the unequivocally endorsed the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( CIT ) in deeming the assessment order flawed for permitting a clearly ineligible claim of weighted deduction to the assessee
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ruling that consideration from the sale of urban agricultural land was subject to capital gains tax.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra ( Judicial member ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member ) concluded that the sale consideration of the disputed land was subject to capital gains tax in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to allow the cost of improvement with indexation and to re-compute capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S.Pannu ( Vice president ) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) directed the Assessing Officer to permit the cost of improvement with indexation and to recalculate the capital gains accordingly. In the result, appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) decided to delete the income tax addition, as it found that the taxable contract income exceeded the fixed price contract value under Section 97 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising V. Durga Rao ( Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal ( Accountant member) observed that a crucial aspect to consider was that the total contract revenue had been dutifully subjected to taxation throughout the entire contract period, spanning from the fiscal years 2012-13 to 2022-23. This was substantiated by the comprehensive details of invoices presented in the records.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Fees or management support under Section 9(1) (vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, was not fees for technical services ( FTS ) under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S Pannu ( Vice President ) and C.N Prasad ( Judicial member ) concluded that in accordance with the Tribunal’s decision for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16, and the bench concluded that the fee received from Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. for management support services does not fall under the category of Fees for Technical Services ( FTS).
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271 of Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the Assessing Officer’s failure to fulfill conditions under Section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single member bench of the tribunal comparing Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member) nullified the order issued under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- was instructed to be revoked. The grounds of appeal presented by the assessee were granted in accordance with the aforementioned terms. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) grants relief to American Express by allowing the deduction of relocation expenses under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) Allowed of relocation expenses under Section 40(a) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has accepted additional evidence regarding Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961, deduction on common maintenance charges.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Challa Nagendra prasad (Judicial member) and Shamim Yahya ( Accountant member ) accepted the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was sent back to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) ( CIT (A) ) for a fresh examination, considering the implications of the Common Area Maintenance Agreement. It was imperative to note that the assessee should have been afforded the opportunity to present their case and be heard during this reconsideration process.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), directed to verify documents with respect to Form 10-IC in case of dispute in concessional rate of tax while processing of return of income.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Padmavathy S, (Accountant member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadale, (Judicial Member) directed the assessee is to furnish the relevant details in support of the claim of applications of concessional rate of tax under section 115 BAA and co- operate with the appellate proceedings.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the addition made on the self- occupied house property in the hands of the husband due to the absence of a percentage of ownership in the sale deed.
After observing the submissions of both parties, the two-member bench of Anil Chaturvedi ( Accountant Member ) and Astha Chandra ( Judicial Member ) upheld the addition made on self-occupied house property in the hands of the husband due to the absence of a percentage of ownership in the sale deed.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while deleting the penalty levied under ection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the bench held that penalty notice was issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable parts.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Prashant Maharishi, (Accountant member ) and Rahul Chaudhary, (Judicial Member) directed the Assessing Officer to compute short credited interest under section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that unaccounted money was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) and Madumitha Roy ( Judicial member ) crucial to noted that Clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80I8(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were introduced by the Finance Act (No.2), 2009, and are applicable to transactions initiated on or after 01.04.2010. This information is discerned from Circular No.5/2010 dated 03.06.2010.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that non-appearance before the appellate authority is not a wanton act and, consequently, allowed the Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) liability under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) and
Pavn Kumar Gadale ( Judicial member) observed that the counsel for the assessee contested this view, asserting that the assessee was actively engaged in gathering necessary information and that the non- appearance before the appellate authority was not a deliberate act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenge the Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) liability under section 201(1) and the interest payable under section 201(1A), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as determined by the assessing officer. The counsel for the assessee argued that there could be various legitimate reasons for the non-appearance that should not be overlooked.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded an Escapement of Income notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to an 1190-day delay in filing the appeal, citing medical reasons.
The Single bench of the tribunal comprising Sujithra Kamble (Judicial member) observed that the assessee relocated to Halol in the Panchmahal District of Gujarat due to employment. During this period, the assessee faced challenges in coordinating with the tax consultant or professional regarding the appeal filed before the CIT (A). The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, amounting to 1190 days, has been adequately explained due to the assessee’s medical reasons.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed an appeal, emphasizing that the mere disclosure of addresses and identities of shareholders was not sufficient under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kmar ( Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member ) questioned the credibility of a sudden increase in share premium from Rs. 1,90,000 to Rs. 3,43,42,500, considering the company’s meager reported income. Citing legal precedents, the CIT(A) emphasized that the burden of proof under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lies with the assessee, mere banking channel transactions are insufficient, and the mere provision of PAN and return copies does not discharge the burden.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Income earned from carrying out educational activity was eligible for exemption under Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sanjay Kumar ( Judicial member ) and Dr. Manish Board ( Account member ) concluded that the focus shifted to contesting the revisionary order by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption ) [ CIT (E) ] under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Durgapur Society of Management Science, mainly engaged in educational activities, faced scrutiny as gross receipts for the year totaled Rs. 3,97,86,089, with building rent exceeding 50% at Rs. 2,02,34,592.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that legal fiction created under Section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961, not to be extended further for broadening concept of shareholders
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra ( Judicial member ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member ) carefully examined the directives issued by the authorities in this matter. After reviewing the chart delineating the distribution of shares, as presented elsewhere, it was evident that the assessee did not possess any shares in the contested company. The esteemed Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, as established in the case of Ankitech Private Limited, unequivocally ruled that the legal fiction established under section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961, served to expand the definition of dividend exclusively, and this legal fiction should not be extrapolated to further broaden the concept of shareholders.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) has nullified a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the Notice issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind is bad in law.
The bench concluded that the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying the relevant limb for initiating the penalty proceedings, it appears evident that the notices were issued in a standardized manner without due consideration. This approach, being legally flawed, renders the notices insufficient to validate the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In light of these circumstances, the court aligned with the view, upheld by various courts, including the Supreme Court, that under such conditions, the penalty was not applicable. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Pending assessment get abated under Section 153 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 after conducting search and obtaining information
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra ( Judicial member ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member ) contention was that even if the assessments were in progress, the occurrence of a search and the subsequent revelation of information to the Revenue triggered the abatement of pending assessments, as outlined in Section 153A of the Income-tax Act. It was crucial to note that proceedings under section 153C were a direct consequence of actions initiated under Section 153A. Therefore, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Singh Bhatia, the contested assessment order should have been formulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) without indexing cost of acquisition is to be considered for computing tax liability under Section 115JB of income Tax Act 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kavitha Raja Gopal ( Judicial member ) and S. Rifaur Rahman ( Account member ) emphasized the allowance of indexation benefits, particularly as the assessee company was established as a Special Purpose Vehicle for the transfer of Land and Building.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to UTI India Fund Unit Scheme by exempting it under section 10(23D) of the Income Tax Act 1961. This decision stems from the acknowledgment that the offshore fund scheme maintained by UTI India Fund Unit Scheme was an approved unit according to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Narendra Kumar Chaudhary (Judicial member) and S.
Rifaur Rahman (Account member) noted that the assessee fund was part of Schedule II (Sr. No. 37) of
the Repeal Act, vested with UTI Mutual Fund. Despite the Act’s restructuring, the assessee, established for offshore funds, retained its distinct identity, maintained separate books of accounts, and used the same PAN. The assessee was registered under various schemes in Schedule II of UTI Mutual Fund, with its scheme approved by SEBI. The assertion that separate SEBI registration was necessary, as suggested by the Assessing Officer for section 10(23D) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Exemption was unwarranted. The documents submitted by the assessee confirmed SEBI’s approval of its offshore fund scheme.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to non- responsiveness to statutory notices and the failure to produce evidence during the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising M. Bala Ganesh ( Account member ) and Saktijith Dey ( Judicial member ) Addressing the issue of the assessee’s claim about the absence of adequate opportunity, assessment was unawed. The available documentation indicates that the assessee has consistently defaulted in every stage of the process, considering this established pattern of non- compliance, there is no compelling reason to challenge the decision of the first appellate authority. As a result, the grounds presented by the assessee are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has nullified the penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing that loan payments are executed through bank transfers rather than bearer cheques.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising N.K Billaiya ( Account member) and Astha Chandra ( Judicial member) concluded that the assessee contended that initiating penalty proceedings were illegal and invalid as no proceedings for A.Y. 2014-15 were pending. The CIT (A) clarified that the return for A.Y. 2014-15, filed on 12.03.2015, had been processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,and the order under section 143(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not include findings by the then Assessing Officer ( AO ) regarding the applicability of section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a recent development, Boeing India Private Limited ( BIPL ) successfully resolved a tax dispute, with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) canceling a hefty INR 21,52,899 adjustment. The dispute
revolved around BILL’s operational status and its merger with Boeing Corporation India Ltd. ( BCIL ).
The ITAT bench, headed by Shamim Yahya and Challa Nagendra Prasad, agreed with BIPL’s arguments. They stressed that the disputed transaction was not with BIPL and that there was no involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) in BILL’s case. The TPO’s order, forming the basis of the adjustment, pertained to BCIL, an entity that merged with BIPL on April 1, 2017. Consequently, the tribunal ruled
that adjustments in BILL’s case should not impact BILL’s assessment.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when they were commenced beyond the statutory period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member ) concluded that the 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proceedings are liable to be set-aside, in the result, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that merely agreeing to an addition based on the evaluation made by the stamp valuation authority does not constitute conclusive proof that the sale consideration was incorrect.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anupama Gupta ( Accountant member ) and Siddartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member ) reached a conclusion regarding the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the current case. Firstly, it is evident that at the time of the sale of the mentioned immovable property, the assessee had already fulfilled tax obligations amounting to Rs. 5,42,120/- on 26.12.2014 (inclusive of tax deducted at source under Section 194 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Thus, there appears to be no intent to evade taxes on the short-term capital gain arising from the sale of the property.
The Ahamedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed sale expenditure on packing material in jute bags that had been rendered unusable due to damage sustained during loading and unloading.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anupama Gupta ( Judicial member ) and Siddartha Nautiyal ( Accountant member ) found that the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) accurately determined in the ITO vs. M/s. J. K. Patel & Brothers for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, that the entire expense of Rs. 1, 31,875/- was solely and exclusively for business purposes and was supported by evidence. Additionally, the bench believed that this expenditure pertained to packing materials in jute bags that had been damaged or torn during loading and unloading, rendering them unusable and therefore written off as an expense in the Profit & Loss Account. Consequently, we saw no reason to question the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) and thus found no grounds for intervention.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the assessee should be aware that the Department has discovered escapement of income.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Anupama Gupta ( Accountant member ) held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs.1, 85,400/- to be unjustified and direct the deletion of the same.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that allotment of enquiry shares to subscribers was outside scope of Section 56(2) ( viib ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Yogesh Kumar ( Judicial member ) and Pradip Kumar Kediya s( Accountant member ) observed that when allotments are made to existing shareholders, the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)( viib ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not typically apply
According to the valuation report, the Fair Market Value ( FMV ) has been determined at Rs. 14.815 per share, which aligns with the FMV at which shares were issued to the holding company.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) rejected the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing that the trust was involved in issuing bogus bills for donations.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Sujithra Kamble ( Judicial member ) observed that it was evident from the statement provided by the Director of the School of Human Genetics and Population Health Institute that the institute engaged in issuing bills disguised as donations, with funds subsequently funneled back to donors through various channels in the guise of purchases.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter for consideration of the registration of the trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the failure to confirm the authenticity of activities and compliance with relevant laws.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising R.S. Syal ( Vice President ) and Partha Sarathi Choudhari ( Judicial member) overturned the decision of the CIT(E) and referred the matter back to their office with the aforementioned directive. The CIT (E) was instructed to re-adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The grounds of appeal of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Assessing Officer to finalize the assessment order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the delay in finalizing late objections.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising C.N. Prasad ( Judicial member) and Dr. B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member) observed that the assessee , through a letter dated April 11, 2022, informed the Assessing Officer that objections had been filed before the office of DRP-II on April 6, 2022, challenging the draft Assessment Order.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that no response to notice
under Section 133(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 that doesn’t prove that entire transactions are bogus
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Gadan Goyal ( Accountant member ) and Amit Shukla ( Judicial member ) observed the status of these companies and found that most of them are still active and compliant with statutory requirements, which undermines the claim that they were formed solely for accommodation entries. Even though some parties did not respond to notices under Section 133(6), of Income Tax Act, 1961, this does not prove that the entire transactions are fraudulent, especially when all other documents demonstrating the identity and creditworthiness of the parties have been provided and remain unexamined by the AO.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
