This annual round-up analytically summarizes all the Income Tax related Orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Benches of India reported at Taxscan.in during 2024.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Raipur Bench upheld the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) which deleted an Addition of 2.19 crore for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09, as no incriminating material was found during the Search and Seizure for Unabated AY.
The ITAT bench comprising of Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member observed that there are issues regarding the trustworthiness of the Kolkata based company and the assessee has received Rs.2.19 crores and 2.25 crores, under the garb of share capital. According to AO the trustworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transaction could not be established by the assessee, therefore the additions were made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Herein, the court agreed with the observation of CIT(A) that the aforesaid loose papers are receipt of form for allotment and issue of equity share to investor companies and such documents cannot be termed as incriminating documents, this view was supported by the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Goldstone Cements Ltd. reported in [2023].
In view of the decision in the case of Goldstone Cements Ltd. it can be safely concluded that the documents furnished before ROC would not constitute the incriminating material.
In the present case, as the year concerned was an unabated assessment years and also documents surfaced during the search and seizure action are not in the nature of incriminating material, therefore respectfully following the principle laid down by the court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell (supra), the court considers the opinion of CIT(A) i.e to delete the addition of an amount 2.19 crore for the AY 2008-09, had rightly and judiciously and approve the same.
So the grounds of appeal raised by the department were dismissed.
In the Combined result, both the aforesaid appeals of the Department were rendered as dismissed, and the cross objection of the assessee stood partly allowed, in terms of aforesaid observations.
The assessee was represented by Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal a/w Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, CA’s.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for proper verification and adjudication under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 after finding insufficient consideration of unexplained cash credits and investments.
The two-member bench comprising Suchithra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) found that the AO had not properly considered or verified the aspects under Income Tax provisions. The case was remanded for proper adjudication and verification, ensuring the assessee was given a chance to be heard as per natural justice.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made because CIT(A) did not issue a physical notice before ex-parte proceedings on unexplained investment.
The two-member bench comprising Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had appeared and produced relevant documents but the AO refused to entertain. The tribunal further observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without issuing a physical notice of hearing.
Considering the facts and submission, the tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and directed to give adequate opportunity to the assessee for hearing before deciding the matter. Thus, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] decision regarding determining capital gains. The tribunal confirmed the calculation of the holding period for capital gains including the date of sale and transfer of shares.
The two-member bench comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) observed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) computation of capital gains and the submissions.
Further noted that in the case of Bharti Gupta Ramole (supra), the Delhi High Cout held the date of acquisition and the date of sale are included in determining the holding period for capital gains tax purposes. For example, the asset acquired on 1st January 2023 would complete 12 months at the end of the year i.e. 31st of December,2023.
The tribunal also observed that CBDT Circular No. 704 dated 28/04/1995 and CBDT Circular No. 768 dated 24/06/1998 where it was clearly stated the determination of the date of transfer and the period of holding of securities held in dematerialised form under section 45(2A) qua transactions in securities. The tribunal found no error or infirmity in the CIT(A) findings. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. This decision followed the assessing officer’s erroneous addition on the sale of the property when, in fact, there was no sale but rather a joint purchase of the property.
The two-member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) and Shri Yogesh Kumar US ( Judicial Member) noted that the revenue wrongly proceeded on misappreciation of facts of a substantive nature.
The bench further observed that the absence of any reply from the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A), led to a flawed reassessment. The tribunal found the assessee’s affidavit credible and directed the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition made by AO under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench, composed of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), viewed that the AO has erred in invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act and charging tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. The bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed to delete the additions made by AO.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member bench comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra ( Accountant Member ) observed that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ghanshyam Das HUF was in 2009 before the amendment. In 2010, the parliament amended clause (viii) of sub-section 2 to section 56 and section 145(B) of the Income Tax Act to bring the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable as “income from other sources.”
The tribunal clarified that the decision cited by the assessee is no longer applicable. Thus, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s decision and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently in a case held that routine support services are not to be classified under “Fee for Technical Services” ( FTS ) under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ), and thus are not liable to taxation in India.
Based on its observations, the Tribunal concluded that the payments received by the assessee from PBIL should not be classified as FTS under the India-UK DTAA and, therefore, are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, setting aside the AO’s final assessment order and nullifying the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A of ITA.
Recently, the Ahmedabad “A” Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA), noting that income tax notices were not sent to the actual address of the assessee.
After considering the submissions and reviewing the available records, the bench of Ms Suchitra Kamble and Mr Narendra Prasad Sinha observed that it was evident that the reasons provided by the assessee trust, through its Chairman, for not appearing before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and for not submitting the required documents, are genuine.
Therefore, the tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for a thorough adjudication, and verification of the documents submitted by the assessee as additional evidence. It was concluded that the assessee should be granted an opportunity for a hearing, following the principles of natural justice.
Thus, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in a recent case held that meeting statutory requirements of Section 148 of Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) eliminates the need for separate notice under section 143.
In light of the observation, the tribunal held that the requirement for a Section 143(2) notice is not justified in this scenario, as the notice under Section 148 of ITA had already been issued, followed by the relevant statutory notices under Section 142(1) of ITA, to which the assessee also responded. Thus, the ground was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi recently remanded a matter back to the lower authority for fresh consideration, noting that the assessee’s requests for adjournment were not acknowledged.
The Tribunal directed that the case be restored, and that the CIT(A) provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present the necessary evidence to substantiate its claims.
The Ahmedabad bench of ITAT quashed the revision passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper enquiry.
The ITAT bench, comprising of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member), allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the PCIT cannot be justified for invoking explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, as a proper enquiry was made by the AO.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently in a case ruled that reimbursement of secondment charges are not Fee For Technical Services ( FTS ) under Article 12 of India -USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )
The Tribunal also referenced a Delhi High Court decision affirming that in a similar case, the secondees were employees of the Indian entity, and the salary reimbursement by the Indian entity to the foreign entity did not constitute taxable income under the FTS or IPS articles of the tax treaty.
In light of the observations made, the tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, ruling that reimbursement of secondment charges does not constitute FTS under the India-USA DTTA.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals [CIT(A)], on expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in the total income (exempt income).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal bench of Judicial Member T R Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta upheld the deletion of disallowance by CIT(A) for both Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The disallowance was limited to the amount of exempt income earned in 2015-16, and no disallowance was permitted in 2016-17 since no exempt income was earned.
In short, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year. This reaffirms that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the disallowance of purchases matter back to the file of the assessing officer for verification ensuring justice should not only be done but also appears to be done.
The two member bench comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Sudhir Pareek (Judicial Member) heard both side’s arguments. The bench highlighted the importance of justice and giving opportunities by stating justice should not only be done but also appears to be done.
In order to provide fair justice, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the assessing officer for verification of the material/ documents produced by the assessee during the proceedings. Thus, the tribunal directed the assessing officer to verify all the documents and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee before deciding the matter.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the excess stock addition made by the assessing officer due to the misinterpretation of the accounting system of finished goods and unsubstantiated evidence of sales.
The two-member bench comprising B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) and Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the assessing officer made an addition solely based on the statement given by the personnel who were not directly involved in day-to-day stock management and without any corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales.
The tribunal noted that the assessing officer included the entire quantity of finished goods as unaccounted stock without considering the corresponding raw material recorded in the books of accounts. The tribunal further noted that the AO did not dispute the details and reconciliation submitted by the assessee including quantity analysis in this regard.
In the tribunal’s observation, the AO’s additions are due to the misinterpretation of the accounting system of finished goods and solely based on the statements recorded without any corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales. No evidence of any questionable transactions outside the recorded accounts was discovered. Thus, the excess stock addition cannot be sustained. The assessee’s appeal was allowed accordingly.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to classify Rs. 129.03 lacs, including income from staff loans and miscellaneous income, as business income rather than income from other sources, affirming that such income was directly related to the business
The two-member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member) rejected the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Cochin Bench recently addressed a significant issue in a batch of 49 appeals involving various entities from the ABC Sales Corporation group for improper application of Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to obtain prior approval from a senior officer before making assessments under Sections 153A and 153C, often linked to search and seizure actions.
The tribunal bench of Judicial Member Satbir Singh Godara and Accountant Member Amarjit Singh observed that this approach was flawed, referencing recent judicial precedents that highlighted the necessity of a non-mechanical approval process under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.
Given the significant procedural lapse and in the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to remand all 49 appeals back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) must address the fundamental issue regarding the validity of the approval under Section 153D and reassess all other related grounds raised by the assessees.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered JAO to consider additional documents filed before CIT(A) due to non – verification of gifts that were received from the assessee’s grandmother.
The bench, Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), by upholding the principle of natural justice, directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ( JAO ) to consider the additional documents that were filed before the CIT(A). The JAO was directed to pass an order in accordance with the law and to give the assessee a fair chance to be heard.
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against JN Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians, affirming the entitlement of the charitable trust to the exemption available under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal bench of Judicial Member Pavan Kumar Gadale and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri observed that the application of income occurred in India when the scholarships were disbursed to the students, regardless of where the education took place.
The ITAT’s dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal reinforces the principle that the geographical location where the charitable activity (education) is executed does not preclude the application of income within India, provided the funds are disbursed within the country.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal, has granted a stay on the recovery of ₹45 lakhs from the appellant, who is contesting an addition made to her income on account of an alleged unexplained investment in land. The stay is effective for three months or until the disposal of her appeal, whichever comes first.
The tribunal bench after reviewing the submissions and evidence, found merit in the appellant’s case, noting that she had a prima facie strong argument against the addition.
Consequently, the tribunal directed the Income Tax Department to stay the recovery of the outstanding demand and scheduled the hearing of her appeal for September 17, 2024.
This decision offers the appellant temporary relief from the tax demand as she continues to challenge the addition before the tribunal.
In a recent order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad, has remanded the case of Shilp Gravures Ltd back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for further examination. The case involves the company’s claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ₹1.56 crore for the assessment year 2017-18.
However, this being the department’s appeal, the tribunal bench of Judicial Member Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Shri Ramit Kochar, observed that the CIT(A) did not adequately examine the factual details specific to the assessment year in question, particularly concerning the commissioning of new windmills and the computation of deductions.
It was noted that, “ the ld. CIT(A) whose powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO, did not examine the factual matrix of claim of deduction u/s 80IA , its computation and its allowability thereof.”
Given this oversight, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has sent the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed review of the facts related to the company’s claim under Section 80IA, ensuring that all relevant details are properly considered before a final decision is made.
The appeal of the Revenue was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad Bench directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to delete penalties amounting to ₹8.25 lakhs each that were imposed on the appellant in the present case for alleged violations of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal Bench of Accountant Member Smt. Annapurna Gupta, concluded that the penalties were imposed without sufficient evidence and were based on presumptions rather than solid proof.
It was remarked that, “the Revenue Authorities are under obligation to record a clear finding which would leave no scope for doubt and which is based on authentic evidence, that the assessee has committed the offence which was liable to be visited with penalty. That penalty cannot be imposed on vague and imaginary evidence.”
Therefore, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, ruling in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.
Recently, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Ahmedabad directed for reassessment of an Assessee’s case, noting that there were inaccuracies in reporting share transactions in the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the lower authority’s order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) was upheld.
The bench of Mr Siddhartha Nautiyal and Mr Makarand V Mahadeokar, after carefully reviewing the case made several observations.
However, the Tribunal directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment, taking into account the discrepancies identified during the proceedings. The AO was instructed to give the Assessee a fair opportunity to present their case and to carry out a de novo assessment in accordance with the law.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ) quashed a reassessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ruling that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot issue a reassessment notice while the original return is still pending.
The two-member bench of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Avdhesh Mishra (Accountant Member) concluded that, since the Revenue’s appeal was no longer relevant due to the ruling, it was dismissed and the grounds of appeal were left open.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently ruled that deduction under section 54 of Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) is allowable even if proceeds from sale of old property are not reinvested in the acquisition of new asset/property.
The ITAT bench comprising of Mr Senthil Kumar and Mr Narendra Prasad Sinha, upon reviewing the facts and the legal provisions, referred to the specific language of Section 54(1) of ITA which clearly stipulates that the exemption is available if the new residential property is purchased within one year before or two years after the sale, or if it is constructed within three years after the sale.
It was concluded that the exemption is based on the acquisition of a new residential property within the allowed timeframe, irrespective of whether the funds used are the direct proceeds from the sale.
ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the AO to grant the deduction under Section 54 of ITA and to delete the addition made to the assessee’s income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a recent case ruled that prepaid finance charges made for business purposes are deductible in the year of payment, and thus amortization is not necessary.
The division bench of Mr Mahavir Singh and Mr SR Raghunatha, after considering both sides, noted that the key issue was whether the prepaid finance charges could be fully claimed in the year of payment or should be distributed across the loan period.
The tribunal observed that in a previous case involving the same assessee for assessment year 2011-12, it was ruled that finance charges should be allowed as a deduction in the year of payment, even if they were treated as deferred revenue expenditure or prepaid expenditure in the books of accounts.
In light of these observations it was held that deduction on prepaid finance charges in the year of payment are allowable, and pro rata amortization is not necessary.
Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted and the appeal of assessee was allowed on this ground.
The two member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad has ruled that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the merits of the case, and has accordingly set aside the case to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication based on its merits.
The bench comprising Ramit Kochar ( Accountant member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member) concluded that the CIT(A) had erred both in law and in fact by summarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal without addressing the grounds raised or discussing the merits of the case. Consequently, ITAT set aside the case, directing the CIT (A) to re-adjudicate on the merits, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax‘s (PCIT) order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiries and verifications during the original assessment proceedings, and concurred with the PCIT’s finding that the AO’s order was erroneous due to the lack of investigation into exempt agricultural income, the source of payments for land purchases, and cash deposits in the bank account.
The tribunal reviewed the arguments and materials on record, and the two-member bench, consisting of Suchithra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar, observed that the initial Section 263 notice was based on audit objections that were not accepted by the AO, and that the jurisdictional AO’s proposal for Section 263 action specifically referenced audit objections related to exempt agricultural income and associated expenses.
Accordingly, ITAT dismissed the Assessee’s appeal and upheld the PCIT’s order.
In a recent judgment, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that, based on material found at a third person’s premises, assessment proceedings should be conducted under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act instead of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In the present case, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ramit Kochar (Accountant member) and Siddartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) observed that the additions to the assessment were solely based on documents found at Sankalp Group, and since these additions were based entirely on material unearthed from a third party’s premises, the Department should have proceeded under Section 153C, following the appropriate process outlined in that section, rather than under Section 148.
The reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid as they were conducted without following the correct procedural path under Section 153C. The subsequent revisionary proceedings were also based on an invalid order and lacked jurisdiction. Judicial precedents, including the decisions in ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the capital gain exemption shall not be denied just because the claim was made additionally in the revision assessment.
The two-member bench comprising Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) and Jamlappa D Battull (Accountant Member) observed that the issue in this case is directly covered by the decision of this tribunal in ITO vs. Shri Rajavikram. In that case, the tribunal granted an exemption under section 54B to a co-owner of the land stating AO cannot deny an exemption just because the assessee raised an additional claim later. In the absence of any development or new material, the tribunal has no reason to decide the issue on a different stand.
The tribunal decided the issue in favor of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the addition made by the assessing officer for share capital/premium due to the absence of incriminating evidence found during the search.
The tribunal referred to Delhi High Court cases where it was ruled that a disclosure under Section 132(4) does not qualify as incriminating material. No incriminating material was found during the search regarding non-genuine share capital or share premium. Thus, the addition was not sustainable. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Bench, Mumbai quashed the Income Tax Notice and Order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction.
The ITAT Bench comprising of Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member and Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member observed that based on the facts and the two judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, the court is of the view that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is without the jurisdiction and hence set aside making the resultant re-assessment order null and void. Since the re-assessment order has been quashed, we find it not necessary to delve into the merits of the case. Accordingly the ground argued by the assessee is allowed.
The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Respondent, Income Tax Officer, Mumbai represented by Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R.
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted Trust a second chance to prove the genuineness of its activities and remanded the registration application under Section 12AB of Income Tax Act,1961,back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)).
The two-member bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant) set aside the order rejecting the trust’s registration under section 12AB of the act and giving the assessee another chance to address the issues before the CIT(E).
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled in favour of BSNL Employees’ Co-operative Society, granting it the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Keshav Dubey ( Accountant Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Judicial Member ), after considering the rival submissions, acknowledged that the revenue authorities had previously denied the deduction based on a detailed analysis under Section 80P(4) read with Section 2(24) of the Income tax law. However, the ITAT found that the society, formed under the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959, solely for the benefit of BSNL employees, did not operate as a bank and was therefore eligible for the Section 80P(2) deduction.
The appellate tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue and decide on the deduction claim in light of the Tribunal’s ruling reference. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the assessing officer to re-compute the quantum of penalty on incorrect income tax deduction under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench, comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ), directed the AO to recompute the penalty on the incorrect income tax deduction under Section 54EC. The bench also held that while computing the penalty, relief of Rs. 30,00,000 should be granted, thus reducing the penalty amount accordingly.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITAT ) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) noting that the order overreached beyond limited scrutiny jurisdiction.
The tribunal referred to several judicial precedents to support its conclusions. It noted that the PCIT, while exercising suo motu revisionary powers under Section 263 of the tax statute, could not exceed the scope of the issues originally subject to limited scrutiny.
Additionally, the ITAT emphasized that any direction issued by the PCIT without a proper show cause notice or without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard was invalid.
Consequently, the ITAT quashed the order passed by the PCIT, upholding the original assessment order issued by the AO.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi held that subscription fees from cloud services are not taxable as royalty in India under the India -Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
Given that there had been no changes in the factual or legal circumstances since those decisions, the bench of Mr BRR Kumar and Ms Madhumita Roy ruled in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made to the assessee’s income . As a result, the appeal was allowed in its entirety.
Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi restored a matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] for fresh adjudication as ex parte order was passed without properly representing the assessee.
The tribunal held that the assessee upon services of the notice from AO shall respond to the same and furnish necessary documents/information as sought by the AO. In result, the appeal was allowed and the CIT(A)’s order was set aside.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
