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 Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no addition can be made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on turnover declared under 44 AD of the act.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, JM & Ms Padmavathy S, Am viewed that the addition made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the entire turnover which the assessee declared under section 44 AD of the act is not tenable. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the assessing officer and dismissed the appeal of revenue.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition of 1.43 crore on ground that maturity Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) amounts are exempted from taxability under section 10(10D) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising N.K Billaya (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) considered that the authorities below were not justified in denying the benefit of exemption to the assessee. Maturity maturity Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) amounts are exempted from taxability under section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, The AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,43,08,000/-. Accordingly appeal of the assessee was allowed
In recent ruling the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) observed that the State Bank of India is in default meaning under Section 201
(1) (1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 192 of reimbursement of LTC ( Leave Travel Concession )
/LFC ( Leave Fare Concession ) and HTC ( Home Travel Concession ).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S.Pannu (Vice president) and Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial member) held that the assessee is in default within the meaning of Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act on the reimbursement of LTC ( Leave Travel Concession ) /LFC ( Leave Fare Concession ) and HTC ( Home Travel Concession ). Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance for delayed deposit of provident fund ( PF ) and employee state insurance corporation( ESIC ).
the issues Karnataka High Court in the case of Biocon Ltd the two member bench comprising Kavitha Rajagopal, (Judicial Member) & S Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant Member) observed that Madras High Court has cleared the ambiguity in interpreting the “due date” for the purpose of provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On this observation, the arguments of the AR fails and the bench is inclined to dismiss the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Kolkata Bench recently deleted the addition of Share Premium as calculation of Fair Market Value ( FMV ) of equity shares based on book value by the Assessing Officer was carried out without due consideration of the valuation report furnished by the assessee.
The appellate tribunal noted that the valuation report obtained from a registered valuer meticulously considered both movable and immovable properties, a crucial aspect overlooked by the lower authorities.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the taxpayer voluntarily clarified the discrepancy in lease equalization disallowance without any malicious intent.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S.Rifafur Rahman (Accountant member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial member) observed that the taxpayer voluntarily clarified discrepancy in lease equalization disallowance without malicious intent. Therefore, the bench further deemed it fit to direct the AO to delete the impugned penalty levied. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal as the Assessing Officer ( AO ) made no reference to any incriminating material while adding on TDR transactions.
The Coram of Saktijit Dey ( Vice President ) and N.K Billaiya ( Accountant member ) observed that the addition on account of EDC to HUDA is concerned the same is made on examination of the entries in the books of account, therefore, this is also devoid of any incriminating material.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal as the jurisdiction challenge of the assessing authority was not filed within one month as per Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai ( Judicial member ) observed that this issue had already become time barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [(CIT(E)] and directed re-adjudication after a trust mistakenly applies for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake in applying under Section 12A (1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It was informed to the Bench by the AR for the assessee that even now the assessee has filed fresh Form No.10AB seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, which can also be considered.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled to delete the addition of Rs. 64 crore after determining that the non-competition fee received under restrictive covenants restrained the source of income.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sakti Jit Dey ( Vice President ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member) concluded that whereas compensation received for loss of agency is taxable as revenue receipt, however, receipts attributable to the negative covenants for not to carry on a business are capital receipts not liable to tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the same. Appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while allowing the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that printing, publishing and subscription of books of vedas, gita, upanishads for imparting education is not commercial activity.
The tribunal observed that the assessee trust is not merely engaged in the business of printing, publication and subscription of books, but rather incidental to the main activity of the trust which is nothing but the spreading the message of Rev Dada.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) on account of failure to appeal before the lower authorities due to the sudden resignation of accountant without intimation directed readjudication of the assessee’s case.
The tribunal observed that the in the present assessee’s peculiar case wherein the assessee’s accountant who was looking after the assessee’s case left the job without intimating the notices as well as the assessee not being able to know the intricacies of Income Tax Act and its compliances could not represent his case either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A).
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the waiver of loan for acquiring capital assets cannot be taxed as a perquisite under Section 28
(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd wherein the Supreme Court held that waiver of loan for acquiring capital assets cannot be taxed as a perquisite under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act as receipt in the hands of the assessee are in the form of cash / money and further, the same cannot be taxed as a remission of liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act as waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal, affirming that no legal proceedings can be initiated during the resolution process against the Corporate Debtor (CD), and only the Interim Resolution Professional ( IRP ) can file an appeal with approval from the Creditor Committee.
Consequently, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Gagan Goyal (Accountant member) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial member) concluded that the appeal filed by the assessee was hereby dismissed with liberty to file the fresh one in proper format duly verified the person authorized or to get the present appeal restored by moving an application.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) sets aside the order passed by CIT (A), emphasizing that routine establishment expenses and interest on loans taken for general business purposes must be allowed as deductions.
The bench observed that the assessee had acquired land in previous years with plans for constructing five towers. Despite completing construction and selling all flats in Tower D1 in the preceding year, the assessee did not declare any income from the sale of Tower D1 flats during that period.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that it is not available to individuals engaged in executing works contracts.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale ( Judicial member) and B.R.Baskaran ( Accountant member) observed that the AO was right in holding that the assessee has only executed a works contract allotted to it by the SPVs. There should not be any dispute that the deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, is not available to the persons executing works contract.
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that share profit from partnership firms is exempted under Section 10 (2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial member) and B.R.Baskaran (Accountant member) observed that the share of profit received from a partnership firm is exempted under section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside assessing officers’ decisions under Section 56(2) (x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to failure to consider sale consideration of immovable property as per sale agreement with stamp duty valuation.
The tribunal, consisting of Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial member), set aside the addition of INR 56,00,022/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act was set aside.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted addition under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as material uncovered during search raises no doubt or suspicion against the taxpayer.
The ITAT concluded that the material/documents found during the course of the search are not of such a nature which incriminates or militates against the assessee. Further, viewed that the material/documents found during the course of search also do not raise any doubt or suspicion against the assessee, and if at all the material/documents may only incriminate against the members in whose account the money was deposited.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) final assessment order for failing to pass a draft assessment as required under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Mrs. Pathmavathy (Accountant member) and Narendar Kumar Choudhri (Judicial member) observed that the final assessment order dated 13/03/2015 under Section 143(3) read with section 92CA (4) of the Income Tax Act passed by the Assessing Officer, without passing the draft assessment order as prescribed Under Section 144C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio. Hence, the assessment order itself was quashed.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that passing intimation under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity is deemed unlawful, opposing the action of the Assessing Officer (AO).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial member) observed that the assessee has claimed this loss in the return of income, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee and issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently directed readjudication with respect to interest paid to the related persons and family members for availing of unsecured loans
The tribunal bench comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) observed that the loans received from the related parties are unsecured loans. It is further pertinent to note that though the AO considered the rate of interest charged by the bank @12%, however, did not provide the name of such bank and the terms of such loan for comparing the same with the unsecured loans received by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act in respect of identified debts.
Astha Chandra, (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya(Accountant Member) observed that an identical issue was brought up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for AY 2015-16. Accordingto the decision the bench observed “that deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act will be limited only in those cases where such bad debt exceeds provision under Section 36(1)(viia) of Income Tax Act . That means there should be a debt against which a provision under Section 36(1)(viia) Income Tax Act should exist and such debt is a subject matter of write off under Section 36(1)(vii). Under such circumstances only the excess will be allowed. “
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently ruled that purchase and sale of shares transactions could not be considered bogus when documentary evidence genuinely established.
the bench comprising Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal observed that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered to be bogus, when the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee establish genuineness of the claim.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Tata Steel Limited, ruling that perpetual non-convertible debentures are allowable expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
the tribunal comprising M.Balaganesh (Accountant member) and Vikas Aswathy (Judicial member) found that in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the PCIT had invoked revisional jurisdiction on the same issue, It is not disputed by the Department that the PNCD on which the assessee has paid interest are the same that were subject matter of dispute in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act Thus, in the light of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench on same issue in assessee’s own case in preceding assessment year.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), emphasizing that the application in Form No.10AB should be construed under Section 12A (1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member bench of the tribunal, comprised of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Girish Agarwal (Accountant member), meticulously reviewed the records. It became apparent that the assessee’s application should have been made under section 12A, sub-clause (1)(ac)(i), entitling them to regular registration for a period of five years. Dismissal of the applications occurred solely due to the erroneous mention of the clause in the application form. Given the opportunity within the system, the assessees could have rectified this mistake and correctly referenced Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed capital gain deduction for additional compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs paid to vendors for land acquisition costs, finding no grounds for doubt.
The tribunal comprising Astha Chandra (Judicial member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) directed the AO to grant deduction of Rs. 25 lakhs while computing capital gain on sale of lands. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.
The two member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai, ruled that management fees for sale of securities is allowable expenditure under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) and Vikas Aswathy (Judicial member) observed that there are contrary decisions of the Tribunal on allowability of Management Fee under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. It is a well settled proposition that when two views are possible, the view in favor of assessee, thus the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed Section 80IA deduction as it considered filing the Audit Report in Form 10CCB before filing the Income Tax Return as merely directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S.Pannu ( Vice President) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member) held that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due date for filing of return of income under Section 139(1) is only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration. Thus, ITAT directed the AO to allow deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed re-adjudication, stating that either Form 26AS or Form 16 is essential for claiming Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) credit.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S. Rifafur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Narendar Kumar Choudhry ( Judicial member ) observed that the assessee by filing TDS working which is though initialed by somebody but the same is neither on proper letter head nor there is a name of the person who signed such document and even otherwise, the assessee has also failed to file any document, wherefrom it can be reflected that the Assessee has received any particular amount of salary on which TDS has been deducted and therefore, in absence of relevant documents, the Commissioner correctly held that the AO has not made any mistake in non-granting of credit of TDS, since, the assessee did not furnish any salary slip or Form No.16.
The Rajkot bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed the addition of income as ‘undisclosed income’ at the hands of the husband, citing that the income was already declared by the wife.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Suchithra R Kamble ( Judicial member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member ) found that there was no case with the Revenue now to tax the same income in the hands of the assessee also in terms of the clubbing provisions of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Having accepted the said income as belonging to the assessee’s wife in scrutiny assessment, the Department is now debarred from taking a contrary view and taxing it in the hands of the assessee on the ground that his wife was not actually carrying out any business. Accordingly, the appeal filed by assessee was allowed.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing the surrender of additional professional income to cover the expenditure incurred on building.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) observed that the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,11,600/- on account of addition in the value of building cannot also be held to be justified as the assessee in clear terms has surrendered the additional professional income covering the expenditure incurred on building also. The addition made by the AO cannot be held to be justified and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed the assessment order due to the jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Suchithra Kamble ( Judicial member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member ) quashed the assessment order finding the jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act being issued beyond limitation prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 15 lakhs for sponsorship fees paid to a trust, as it was deemed to be a personal obligation of the director rather than a legitimate business expenditure.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Yogesh Kumar US ( Judicial member ) and Dr. B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member) held that the assessee could not prove anything contrary to the adjudication of the CIT(A) and hence declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashes penalty under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, stating that determination of income in the assessment order cannot serve as the basis for filing Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Wassem Ahemed ( Accountant member) and Madumitha Roy ( Judicial member) concluded that the levy of penalty seems not only harsh but also not sustainable in the eyes of law under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act and hence quashed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest income to a cooperative society from investments with any other cooperative society is deemed allowable under Section 80P, providing relief to Indian Oil employees’ welfare.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial member ) and Prashanth Maharishi ( Accountant member ) directed the lower authorities to allow the deduction to the assessee on interest income earned from various cooperative banks under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of 1.74 crore after finding that labor expenses capitalized in land value did not warrant deduction claimed in the Profit & Loss Account.
The bench of T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial member) and Waseem Ahemed (Accountant member) noted that the question of making disallowance arises when the assessee claimed the deduction. In the present case, undeniably the assessee has not claimed any deduction in the year in dispute and therefore on this count as well as such expenses cannot be disallowed in the year under consideration.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the extension timeline provided in Form No. 10AB for Section 12A recognition was deemed to be an extension for the approval renewal under the first provision of Section 80G(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manoj Kumar Agarwal (Accountant member) and Mahavir Singh (Vice President) set aside the order of CIT (Exemption) on the same reason and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for deciding the issue on merits as per law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) lacked authority for preliminary deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to April 2021.
Therefore, the two member bench consisting Rajpal Yadav ( Vice President ) and Girish Agarwal ( Accountant member) set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act at Rs.19,42,264/-. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the Income Tax Return filing within due date in mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80IB (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Waseem Ahemed ( Accountant member ) and Suchithra Kamble (Judicial member) observed that the assessee was claiming deduction under Section 80IB (10) and the Income Tax Statute under Section 80IB (10) is also uses the word “shall” and therefore the condition of filing the return of income within the due date was mandatory in nature. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Explanation 3 to Section 147 of Income Tax Act cannot be extended to make New Addition beyond Initial Reopening Assessment Reasons: ITAT quashes Order- M/s Vishram Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited vs ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 545
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the assessment order as no addition was made based on the reason to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) found that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, and the assessment order was liable to be quashed. Therefore, the same was quashed accordingly. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the taxpayer without shareholding cannot be deemed ‘dividend’ receiver under Section 2(22) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sanjay Garg ( Judicial member ) and Girish Agarwal ( Accountant member ) concluded that by invoking second limb of section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, accrual of income and its taxability cannot be held to be in the hands of the assessee i.e. ASMSPL. ITAT thus, set aside the findings of CIT(A) and deleted the addition of Rs.5,50,11,501/- added in the hands of the assessee ( ASMSPL ) by treating the amount of loan and advance as deemed dividend under Section (22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee was allowed.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after validating the taxpayer’s document, affirming the identity and genuineness of the transaction
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Girish Agarwal ( Accountant member ) and Sanjay Garg ( Judicial member ) held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the loan transaction validated by duly furnishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rajesh Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Sanjay Garg ( Judicial member ) observed that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action. Even all the creditors have duly confirmed the transactions and also established the source of the credits and the loan being also repaid in a short span of time. The CIT(A), therefore, has rightly held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
In a recent ruling the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT
) observed that the deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowed to enterprise carrying civil contract work for developer of infrastructure facility.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manohan Das ( Judicial member ) and Manju Natha G ( Accountant member ) set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of deduction under Section 80- IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, in light of necessary evidences including agreement entered into by the appellant with various departments and ascertain the nature of works executed by the assessee, in order to consider for the purpose of section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, and decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee allowed
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted Rs. 39.2 Lakhs Cash Credit Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing absence of adverse findings on purchases or stock.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharath (Judicial member) observed that invoking the provision of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, would not be justified. It is not a case of inflated purchases but AO treated cash sales being bogus without disturbing the book results. Therefor it was held that the authorities below have committed error in making impugned addition without bringing any adverse material in respect of purchases and stock of assessee. The impugned order was set aside and the AO was directed to delete the impugned addition. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ordered a reconsideration, directing fresh adjudication. This decision comes as submissions regarding Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) deductions under Sections 194J or 194C for payments related to X-Ray and CVC machine maintenance were not considered.
The bench of G.S.Pannu ( Vice President ) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) restored this matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file all the evidence to support their contentions before the AO. All the issues in the appeal are left open for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal for AY 2019-20 is also restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has allowed Union Bank of India to claim deduction under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) for dividends received from cooperative bank shares.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Mahavir Singh observed that the assessee is a multi-state cooperative society, registered under the multi-state cooperative Societies Act, 2012 at Chennai. The members of the assessee’s society are all employees of Union Bank of India. Assessee extended credit facilities like surety loans, festival loans, calamity loans etc. to its members. Assessee received Rs.3, 77,800/- as dividend from shares held in Chennai Central Co-operative Bank
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has allowed Union Bank of India to claim deduction under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) for dividends received from cooperative bank shares.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Mahavir Singh observed that the assessee is a multi-state cooperative society, registered under the multi-state cooperative Societies Act, 2012 at Chennai. The members of the assessee’s society are all employees of Union Bank of India. Assessee extended credit facilities like surety loans, festival loans, calamity loans etc. to its members. Assessee received Rs.3, 77,800/- as dividend from shares held in Chennai Central Co-operative Bank
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed appeal citing a lack of proper explanation for the 726-day delay. The appeal is time barred by 726 days. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2021 and assessee has disclosed the date of service of the impugned order on 07.09.2021 as per form no.36
A single member bench of Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) found no reasonable cause as it seemed that this is a cooked story and the assessee could not file any supporting materials like medical certificate i.e. family members were affected by covid per and for how long. Even otherwise there is a long delay of 726 days which was not properly explained.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the failure to prove the genuineness of the share purchase transaction claim and the creditworthiness of the invested company.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) uphold the finding of the CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee on the merit of the addition are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that Short Term Capital Loss ( STCL ) offsettable against Short Term Capital Gain ( STCG ) across assets regardless of tax rate disparity under Section 70 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith Singh ( Accountant member ) observed that the provisions of section 70(2), STCL arising from any asset can be set off against STCG arising from any other asset under a similar computation made irrespective of different rate of tax. Therefore following the decision of ITAT, the bench allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gain from sale of equity shares not taxable as per Article 13 (4) of India – Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharat ( Judicial member) and Dr. B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member) concluded that will not preclude the assessee from claiming benefit under Article 13(4) of the Treaty when the capital gain clearly falls within the ambit of Article 13(4) of the Treaty. ITAT allowed the assessee’s additional ground and held that the capital gain derived by the assessee from the sale of equity shares is not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled deduction cannot be claimed by Assessee when employees’ contribution is not being paid to the respective Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees State Insurance Act (ESI) Acts.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manish Board (Accountant member) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) concluded that according to the revenue there was no debate on this point at the level of the assessing officer. At the time litigation was raised to the level of CIT (A), the Supreme Court had decided the position of law. Therefore, there was no merit in this fold of contention also. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the source for deposits made during the demonetization period has been substantiated.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial member) and M.S.Pathmavathy S (Accountant member) viewed that the assessee has discharged the onus of substantiating the source for the deposits made in SBN during demonetisation period and that the addition made by the revenue without disputing the business income of the assessee is not tenable. In view of the above discussion, ITAT considered that the addition of Rs 33,40,327/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Rs. 52.9 lakhs as there is no Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) liability, given that the property sold was agricultural land, and the computation of total income has been submitted as evidence.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) and George George K (Vice President) found the assessee had not declared any admitted tax. On the facts of the instant case, assessee had claimed the receipt is for sale of agricultural land and not liable for capital gains. Since assessment has been completed under Section 147
r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of INR 60.1 Lakhs after the appellant’s bank statements confirmed full payment and compliance with Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amarjit Singh ( Accountant Member ) and Rahul Chaudhary ( Judicial Member ) concluded that the conditions laid down in second proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act were also satisfied the addition of Rs.60,19,506/- made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and is therefore, deleted. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the adjustment regarding the arm’s length pricing of export commission payment against Honda subsidy.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) allowed this ground of the appeal and thereby directed the transfer pricing officer/assessing officer to delete the adjustment on account of the arm’s-length price of the export commission payment of ₹495,348,444/-. ITAT respectfully followed the earlier decision of the coordinate Bench and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The addition is deleted. Accordingly, Appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has disallowed the taxpayer’s claim under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the taxpayer failed to construct a residential house within the stipulated three- year period from the date of transfer of the old house.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member) found no error or infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in denying the benefit of deduction to the assessee under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, accordingly, ITAT found no merit in the Ground of Appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing denial of the opportunity to be heard.
the two-member tribunal bench, consisting of N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), nullified the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case to the AO. The AO was directed to furnish the assessee with a copy of Mr. Nem Chand Gupta’s statement, obtained by the Investigation Wing, along with any other relevant material utilized against the assessee. Furthermore, the tribunal mandated that witnesses whose statements were relied upon should be made available for cross-examination. The assessee will be granted ample opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Revenue’s appeal deemed allowed for statistical purposes
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) ruled that tax treaty benefits cannot be denied solely based on the mobile number provided in the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) showing fraud in True caller.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial member) hold that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was liable to benefit provided under Article 24 which provides that Government of one contracting state shall be exempt from tax in other contracting states in respect of any income derived by such income from that other contracting states. Since Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has been specifically mentioned in Article 24(2)(b)(ii), therefore, none of its income is taxable in India. Accordingly, charging of interest of Rs. 365.40 crores was held to be non-taxable in India. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) credit and self- assessment tax, as the Department of Inland Revenue Sri Lanka certifies the assessee’s gross remuneration.
The bench of M.S Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member) and Amarjith Singh ( Accountant member) was directed to allow the credit of TDS amount and self- assessment tax to the assessee after examination of the copy of tax residency certificate and copy of tax certificate as referred above submitted by the assessee. Therefore, both the appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the failure to prove the genuineness of the share purchase transaction claim and the creditworthiness of the invested company.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) upheld the finding of the CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee on the merit of the addition are dismissed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal citing a lack of proper explanation for the 726-day delay. The appeal is time barred by 726 days. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2021 and assessee has disclosed the date of service of the impugned order on 07.09.2021 as per form no.36.
A single member bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) found no reasonable cause as it seemed that this is a cooked story and the assessee could not file any supporting materials like medical certificate i.e. family members were affected by covid per and for how long. Even otherwise there is a long delay of 726 days which was not properly explained.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
