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 Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) due to the assessee’s failure to prove the credibility of a loan amounting to Rs. 3.00 crores.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar (Accountant Member) found that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh examination, with directions to give the assessee a fair chance to present all required details for reassessment.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) to reconsider an objection to a long-term capital gain assessment, which had been rejected due to a signature irregularity by the Authorized Representative (AR) while the assessee was outside India.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) in light of the principles of natural justice, set aside the DRP’s order and directed it to reconsider the objection filed by the assessee, ensuring a fair opportunity for hearing. In conclusion the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )ruled that no disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961 could be imposed for unclaimed Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) due to the lack of deduction.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) and Dr.BRR Kumar ( Accountant Member ) ruled that since the assessee had not claimed any deduction and did not route the GST through the Profit and Loss Account, the appeal was allowed, and the disallowance under Section 43B was reversed.
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Ahmedabad has affirmed that purchases supported by proper documentation—such as bills, recorded entries in books of accounts, and payments made through cheques—cannot be deemed as bogus transactions. This decision arose from the appeals of M/s. Patel Kenwood Pvt. Ltd., challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) regarding certain purchases.
In conclusion, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by the AO, underlining that valid documentation substantiates the legitimacy of financial transactions.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently upheld the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, affirming its role in promoting the growth of cooperative societies.
However, on the contrary it was held against the assessee that, “Therefore, in light of these facts discussed above, the PCIT set-aside the assessment order is being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On going through the contents of the assessment order, the assessee’s activities during the impugned year under consideration, and the assessee’s alternate claim for claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. PCIT, so as to call for any interference”. The tribunal bench noted the necessity for re-verification of claims to ensure compliance with statutory provisions.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench has upheld a revision order reaffirming the right of the assessee, a Ginning Pressing Cotton Sale Co-operative Society Ltd. to make an alternate claim for deductions under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
The ruling reiterates that the mere technicalities in the operation or equipment used should not overshadow the underlying purpose of cooperative societies, which is to support the agricultural community.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to delete an addition of Rs. 149.29 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year(AY) 2018-19.
The two member bench, comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) and Prashant Maharishi ( Accountant Member ), concluded that the capital reserve could not be classified as income, upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition made by the AO, and dismissed the AO’s appeal, reaffirming that the amalgamation did not incur tax under the relevant sections.
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted a penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the penalty cannot be enforced when the non-compliance with notices arises from the consultant’s failure to inform the assessee.
The tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, deleting the ₹20,000 penalty and emphasising the importance of proper communication in the compliance process.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the deduction of bad debts stating that written off in the books of accounts were sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and no further requirement to prove the irrecoverability of the debts.
Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the assessee had met all the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts by the AO was unjustified and deleted the addition of Rs. 24,50,304. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that extended working hours alone cannot be a valid basis for assuming additional income in the form of commissions where an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds of alleged receipt of commissions by the assessee due to his involvement in transactions outside normal banking hours was challenged by the assessee.
The tribunal bench concluded that the AO’s addition was based purely on speculation and assumptions, leading it to allow the assessee’s appeal and strike down the addition
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) the matter of disallowance of interest expenses back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal stressed the need for the appellant to provide all necessary documentation for proper adjudication. Ultimately, it partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, instructing a detailed review of the disallowed interest expenses based on the loans’ genuineness.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)granted registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act,1961 clarifying that section 13(1)(b) of the Act applies only at the assessment stage for determining exemption under section 11, not during the registration process.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) upon reviewing the Trust’s objectives, determined that its activities, including scholarships and social reform, served the public at large and were not limited to a particular community. Consequently, the tribunal held that the CIT (E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB and directed that the registration be granted. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the disallowance on dividend income claimed by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, ruling that Section 44, being a non-obstante clause, overrides the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing income for life insurance companies.
The tribunal relied on previous rulings in the assessee’s own case in earlier years ( A.Y. 2005-06 to 2008-09 ) which held Section 44, being a non-obstante clause, overrides Section 14A explaining disallowances related to exempt income do not apply to life insurance companies. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the decisions made by the CIT(A) to delete the disallowance of the assessee’s dividend income.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 cannot be invoked solely based on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax’s ( PCIT ) differing view.
Ultimately, it ruled that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue, allowing the appeal and quashing the revision order under Section 263 of the Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals[CIT(A)]’s ruling on unexplained cash credits, affirming the justified deletion of Rs. 2,14,53,435/- added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.This decision relied on theAssessing Officer(AO)’s remand report, which accepted the genuineness of the transactions.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar(Accountant Member) based on this finding, concluded that no addition could be made concerning the discrepancies in the sundry creditors as alleged by the AO and upheld the order of CIT(A). In conclusion the revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Dispute Resolution Panel’s ( DRP ) order, ruling that the defect in Form 35A, which was initially signed by the Authorized Representative ( AR ) instead of the assessee, was curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) in the interest of natural justice,set aside the DRP’s order and directed it to reconsider the objection and pass a new order on the merits after providing the assessee with a proper hearing. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Rs. 4,27,83,714 addition alleged bogus long-term capital gains ( LTCG ) from penny stock transactions citing the Lack of Fair Opportunity for Senior Citizen in Faceless Proceedings.
Therefore, the tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) which upheld the addition of Rs.4,27,83,714 and restored the case for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present their case, particularly concerning the challenge to the reopening of the assessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not apply to a property transaction where the agreement was executed before April 1, 2017.
Therefore, the tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) do not apply to the assessee’s case, as the deed was executed before 1 April 2017 and the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] and directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to resolve the appeal alongside the pending assessment matter
The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member)consequently set aside the CIT(A) order and instructed the NFAC to adjudicate both appeals together, ensuring the assessee was given a proper opportunity for a hearing. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Assessing Officer’s (AO) decision to classify the filing fee for an increase in authorized share capital as revenue expenditure.
The tribunal noted precedent cases of the Mumbai Tribunal in Navi Mumbai SEZ Private Ltd., where similar expenses were treated as revenue expenditures. Therefore, the tribunal upheld AO’s decision and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act , 1961 does not specifically bar carry forward and set off of losses under Capital Gains.
The tribunal directed the assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Addl./JCIT(A)-1 and bring this fact to the knowledge of the Addl./JCIT(A) that brought forward long term capital loss was allowed by CPC but brought forward short term capital loss was not allowed by CPC due to entry in the wrong column in income tax return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur, in a ruling dated October 16, 2024, has quashed the revision order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) against the assessee under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act observing that no substantial error or prejudice to revenue was established by the PCIT.
Since the PCIT could not demonstrate any error in law or establish prejudice to the revenue, the ITAT quashed the revision order, ruling in favour of the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment of unexplained income, considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo consideration, directing the AO to admit the new evidence and provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present his case. In conclusion, appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for genuine unsecured loans provided to the assessee during the assessment year ( AY ) 2014-15.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, affirming that the interest paid on the unsecured loans was deductible and consistent with previous assessments regarding the genuine nature of the transactions.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the income tax assessment order due to a lack of higher authority approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reopening beyond three years.
Given that the Bombay High Court had already ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the earlier decision made by CIT(A), which had followed the High Court’s ruling. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the expense disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961,due to a lack of exempt income during the assessment year ( AY ) 2014-15.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) concluded that the CIT(A)’s rationale was sound, reinforcing that without the presence of exempt income, the applicability of Section 14A was negated, leading to the affirmation of the CIT(A)’s order in favor of the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the reduction of land cost citing an inflated sale price and a lack of evidence to support the legitimacy of the transaction.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to reduce the recorded cost of land to ₹8.5 crores, affirming that the entire arrangement was structured to create a facade of legitimate transactions while enabling the assessee to inflate asset values unjustifiably.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded an income tax matter for readjudication on ground that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) made an ad hoc addition of unexplained receipts without calling for the necessary records.
The ITAT bench comprising of Renu Jauhri ( Accountant Member ) and Beena Pillai ( Judicial Membe ) remanded the case back to the AO to carry out the verification. The bench directed the AO to issue a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 to the parties, and the assessee was directed to furnish all relevant information/details in support of its claim.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the deletion of the ₹8 crores addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961,due to insufficient evidence to support the claim of unexplained credit.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, asserting that the AO’s treatment of the loan as unexplained lacked merit, thereby confirming the deletion of the ₹8 crores addition and recognizing the genuine nature of the transaction and the source of funds involved.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded matter concerning income from long-term capital gain ( LTCG ) back to the Assessing officer for verification after the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) admitted new evidence without complying with Section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of the “EXTENSION” expenses back to the AO for further verification. The AO was directed to examine the evidence related to the “EXTENSION” costs and make a fresh determination based on this verification.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the ruling of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which deleted a ₹2 crore addition to the income of the Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. (TCGL) for the assessment year ( AY ) 2012-13.
The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s order, finding no grounds to alter the well-reasoned decision.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted a ₹4.96 crore addition to the assessee’s income, citing the need for a fresh valuation rather than relying on the District Valuation Officer’s ( DVO ) valuation from the seller’s case.
The two member bench comprising Sunil Kumar Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Prashant Maharishi ( Accountant Member ) concluded that the addition made by the AO based on the seller’s DVO valuation was unjustified. It directed the deletion of the Rs. 4.96 crore addition, emphasizing that the failure to obtain a fresh DVO report for the buyer was a critical error in the assessment process. The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s deletion of a Rs.6.43 crore addition, ruling that the loan received from a wholly owned subsidiary was not to be treated as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek (Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition of Rs.6,43,40,824, siding with the assessee’s characterization of the transactions as current account transfers and reimbursements. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)’s findings and rationale.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year ( AY ) 2017-18 due to procedural flaws in the issuance of the notice.
The two member bench comprising Sunil Kumar Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Prashant Maharishi ( Accountant Member ) found that the AO’s reopening of the assessment was procedurally flawed, leading to the dismissal of challenging the reopening of the assessment.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] decision to delete a disallowance of Rs. 1.67 crores under Section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961. The tribunal concluded that the disallowance was inappropriate due to the absence of any declared exempt income during the assessment year ( AY ) 2014-15.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek ( Judicial Member ) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) upheld the CIT(A) decision and dismissed the Revenue’s ground regarding the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the sales commission payments made by the assessee, for the assessment year ( AY ) 2016-17. This conclusion led to the ruling that the assessee was not obligated to deduct Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) on these payments.
The two-member bench, consisting of George George K ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ), determined that since the payments were not classified as FTS, the respondent-assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer’s disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was invalid, thus ruling in favor of the assessee.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) affirmed the deductibility of Employee Stock Option Plan ( ESOP ) expenses as legitimate business expenditures under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member bench, consisting of George George K ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ), ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the disallowance of ESOP expenses was unwarranted and should be deleted.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reversed the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) additions and upheld the legitimacy of long-term capital gains reported by an individual assessee, for the assessment year(AY) 2014-15.
It upheld the CIT(A)’s view on natural justice, stating that the statements made were not used to support the additions, thus no violation occurred. The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deeming the transactions legitimate and compliant with the Income Tax Act. It partly allowed the appeal, resulting in the deletion of additions and the recognition of the claimed long-term capital gains.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the notional interest in absence of proof to treat share application money in hands of overseas Associated Enterprises ( AE ) as ‘loan’.
Since no inquiry was conducted seeking any information regarding delay in allotment of shares to AE, from the SAIF Zone Authority, the ITAT concluded that delay in allotment of shares cannot be attributed to assessee and deleted the transfer pricing addition.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest on delayed customs duty was deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) concluded that the interest on the delayed customs duty was deductible under Section 37 of the Act and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) criticized revenue for its unnecessary appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision regarding income tax exemption under Section 26AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the assessing officer had already accepted the claim and direction.
The tribunal noted that there was no substantial difference in facts between the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18, where similar exemptions were granted. The tribunal criticized that the revenue appeal was filed after the AO had already accepted the exemption, indicating a lack of coordination or due diligence within the Revenue departments. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal as being “infructuous” since the AO had already accepted the exemption in question.
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the addition of short-term capital gains ( STCG ) after the assessing officer failed to consult a valuation officer to verify the fair market value, as required under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act when the taxpayer challenged the assessed value.
The tribunal agreed with the assessee that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were incorrectly applied due to the dates of agreements and transactions. The tribunal referenced the previous ruling in ITO Vs. M/s. Aditya Narain Verma which stressed the need for proper valuation assessments before making additions. Therefore, the tribunal invalidated the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions of Rs.2,14,22,053 and Rs. 49,11,947. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), denied re-adjudication, stating that remanding decades-old assessment appeals to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) would be impractical due to the unavailability of documents and personal verifications.
The ITAT bench, comprising of Renu Jauhari ( Accountant Member ) and Beena Pillai ( Judicial Mmeber ) restricted the addition to 0.15% of the deposits made in the bank account of the assessee and thus partly allowed the appeal.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee regarding the disallowance of deductions claimed under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The ITAT bench, after referring the precedent, Smt. Harleen Kaur Bhatia vs. PCIT in ITA No. 150/Ind/2019, directed AO to delate the impugned addition. The bench comprising of Raj Kumar Chauhan ( Judicial Membar ) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya ( Accountant Member ) allowed both the appeals filed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of deemed income to the trust, citing the CBDT’s extension of the deadline, which allowed for the belated filing of Form 10B.
The bench restored the case back to the bench of CIT(A) for deciding denovo on merit after considering Circular No. 20/2022 of the CBDT and submissions and documents filed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) nullified the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to procedural lapses on the part of the department.
The Mumbai ITAT bench, comprising of Raj Kumar Chauhan ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya ( Accountant Member), held that the notices issues under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the procedure adopted by the department was illegal and thus directed to the impugned notices and quashes the resultant assessment order.
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that no additions were allowed in completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A or 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without incriminating material found during the search.
The tribunal noted that no assessments were pending at the time of the search, placing the case in the category of “completed/unabated assessments.” The tribunal further observed that both parties agreed on the legal standing as clarified by recent Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the tribunal deleted the additions made for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Bangalore provided relief to a Canara Bank employee and national hockey player, by setting aside income additions totaling Rs. 9.84 lakh.
After hearing both sides, the ITAT two member bench of Mr Laxmi Prasad Sahu and Mr Prakash Chand Yadav found the evidence satisfactory, noting that the assessee had no additional income sources and no indications of substantial investments. The Tribunal accepted that the deposits stemmed from previous cash withdrawals and thus ruled that the Rs. 9.84 lakh should not be counted as unexplained income, favoring the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 25.93 lakh categorized as a “deemed dividend” under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act due to the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) failure to verify whether the transaction constituted an actual loan or merely a Journal entry in shareholder’s account.
The tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) verified the claim regarding the nature of the transactions. The tribunal highlighted that the tax authorities did not sufficiently assess whether the transaction constituted an actual loan or merely a book entry.Therefore, the tribunal set aside CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter to the AO to verify the assessee’s claim. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[ CIT(A) ] regarding unsecured loans for the assessment year (AY) 2015-2016, citing a lack of incriminating evidence.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek (Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue’s ground regarding the addition under Section 68 of the Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) confirmed the addition and penalty on unexplained transactions of Rs. 83.4 lakhs due to the assessee’s repeated non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and assessing officer (AO) without any justifiable cause.
Therefore, the tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to include the sum of Rs. 83,45,000 as the assessee’s taxable income for the relevant assessment year and the penalty of Rs. 24,03,510 due to the failure to disclose the financial transactions properly.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that rejecting records solely due to handwritten form is unjust without considering the taxpayer’s explanation and business context.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order, which is required under the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh evaluation.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that no additions are permitted under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 without incriminating material found during a search.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek ( Judicial Member ) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) quashed the assessment order due to the absence of incriminating evidence obtained in the search, rendering further examination of merits unnecessary. In conclusion the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
