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.
In a recent ruling, the Cuttak bench of the Incomed Tax Appeallate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled in favour of the assessee and held that there was no delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ). It was held that the appeal was filed before the CIT ( A ) within the valid timeframe under the COVID-19 limitation extension.
The bench noted that the assessee had not submitted all relevant evidence before the AO during the initial assessment. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the case back to the AO and directed the AO to give the assessee an adequate opportunity to present the assessee’s evidence.The bench partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a deduction of Rs. 1.72 crore claimed by the assessee for the reversal of a provision for obsolete inventory due to double taxation.
The ITAT bench, comprising of George George K. ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant Member ), held that the claim of the assessee against the reversal of provision to the tune of Rs. 1,72,98,009, as the same stands offered to tax in the year in which the provision was created.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a weighted deduction under Section 35 ( 2AB ) of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessee, classifying funding received from the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research ( DSIR ) as a soft loan rather than a grant.
The Division Bench of Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial Member) and S.Balakrishnan(Accountant Member) based on these findings,determined that the amount was a soft loan, not a grant-in-aid, and allowed the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), directing the AO to reverse the disallowance. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) additions for deemed rental income, emphasizing the validity of long-term lease agreements held by the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) concluded that the AO’s addition of deemed rent lacked sufficient justification, considering the long-standing rental agreements and the absence of related-party transactions. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the appeal filed by the assessee, allowing the claim for the contested rental income.
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of New Delhi ruled that a mere transfer of shares among shareholders does not justify revaluing a company’s property for taxation purposes.
After considering all submissions, the ITAT bench of Mr Pradip Kumar Kedia and Mr Anuhav Sharma upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, observing that the AO had acted without proper jurisdiction in reopening the assessment. The Tribunal reaffirmed that a transfer of shares does not constitute a property transfer by the company, thus rendering the income addition baseless. In result, the appeal was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous after the assessee filed a fresh application for Section 80G approval, following the issuance of Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) Circular No. 07/2024.
Despite the assessee’s contentions, the CIT(E) maintained the rejection of the application due to the late filing. Following the issuance of a CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated April 25, 2024,, the assessee submitted a fresh application to the CIT(E). This new development rendered the original appeal moot, leading to its dismissal. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] for a fresh hearing, citing a violation of natural justice in the issuance of an ex-parte order.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar(Accountant Member), determined that the case should be remanded back to the CIT(E) for a thorough de-novo examination, ensuring that the assessee would receive a fair opportunity to present their case. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent case before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur the tribunal quashed ex-parte additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act ( the Act from hereon) and remarked on the difference between Total Business Turnover and Business Income.
The tribunal directed the AO to calculate estimated profit @1% at around One hundred fifty-three thousand rupees, on transactions of One hundred fifty-three million rupees being the net income of the assessee which will meet the ends of justice. The addition made section 69A of the Act was quashed, though the assessee shall have tax liability and interest was exempted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the aforesaid terms.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of Income Tax Act,1961 for reconsideration following the issuance of a new circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ).
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar(Accountant Member) directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present its case and to ensure that the application would not be rejected solely based on the reasons cited in the earlier order. In conclusion,the assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the Madras Cricket Club,the assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, citing a tax effect below ₹60 lakhs in accordance with Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) Circular No. 09 of 2024.
The tribunal also indicated that if the appeal fell under any exceptions specified in the circular, the Revenue could apply for recalling the order if deemed necessary. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partially upheld the addition of RS.79.35 lakh as unexplained investment related to the property purchase made by the assessee and granted him additional time to submit further documentation.
In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, affirming Rs. 69,35,000 as substantiated while requiring additional proof for the outstanding Rs. 10 lakhs.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for further adjudication regarding the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) corrigendum in the tax assessment order for the assessment year ( AY ) 2017-18.
The two member bench comprising Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ), the remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication, allowing the assessee the opportunity to present her case ,since the CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the Revenue’s appeal for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) restored the matter to the file of the AO, allowing the Assessee to submit the documents and requiring the AO to pass a fresh assessment order, providing a fair opportunity to the assessee. In conclusion,the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partially allowed the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- of the agricultural income, while upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,470/- due to the lack of supporting evidence, such as sale invoices and bills of expenditure, to substantiate the agricultural activities and income.
However, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, accepting Rs. 5,00,000/- of the claimed agricultural income and upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,470/-. In conclusion, the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed, with a portion of the agricultural income being accepted and the remaining income being disallowed due to insufficient evidence.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the revenue’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and granted liberty to the revenue to approach the appropriate bench.
The two member bench comprising Saktijit Dey(Vice President) and M.Balaganesh(Accountant Member)dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and allowed the revenue to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench. In conclusion, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for re-examination, citing an insufficient hearing notice period.
The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objections to remanding the case. Consequently, the appellate tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-evaluate the application and issue a fresh order within 50 days, ensuring that the assessee received a fair opportunity for a hearing. In conclusion, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act,1961 and ordered fresh proceedings after the reconsideration of the quantum addition.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial Member ) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) set aside both the penalty order and the CIT(A)’s decision, allowing the AO to initiate new penalty proceedings, if necessary, following the conclusion of the reassessment process. As a result, the tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3.80 crore made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) regarding on-money in a land purchase transaction, citing the lack of evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transaction.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) noted that no incriminating material was found at the assessee’s premises, and the AO did not conduct independent inquiries. It distinguished the case from B. Kishore Kumar v. DCIT, as the assessee in this case did not admit to paying on-money. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication, citing a violation of natural justice and procedural lapses.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fair opportunity to present her case. A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, due to her lack of diligence in the appeal. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case of the assessee to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for verification of a Rs. 15.71 lakh liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, citing lack of sufficient evidence regarding the discharge of the liability and non-compliance with Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) provisions.
Accordingly, it remanded the matter to the AO, instructing that if the liabilities were discharged as claimed, the assessee should be granted appropriate relief. In summary, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case of the assessee to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for reassessment of the capital gain, highlighting the failure to consider additional evidence.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to evaluate the evidence and re-assess the capital gain, considering the indexed cost of acquisition.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication due to the denial of a personal hearing to the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial Member ) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the assessee is provided an opportunity to present his case. In conclusion,the appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered the rehearing of the assessee’s appeal after the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S(Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard and to pass an order in accordance with the law. The assessee was also reminded to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A). In conclusion,the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest-free advances provided to the assessee’s sister concern.
The ITAT bench, comprising George George K ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the AO was incorrect in making the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the AO to delete the disallowance
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( DCIT ) for the assessment year ( AY ) 2021-22, where the assessing officer ( AO ) had applied Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of the appropriate Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT, comprising of Sktijit Dey ( Vice President ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) quashed the assessment order and held that the proceedings had no legal standing due to procedural lapses. The bench allowed the appeal and held that any examination of other grounds raised was unnecessary since the assessment itself was void.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University’s ( BAOU ),the assessee’s exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for Assessment Year(AY) 2014-15, which was previously denied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)].
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) found that the AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue, as it was based on a correct application of law and facts. The CIT(E)’s exclusion of interest income and retroactive application of Rule 2BBB were incorrect. In conclusion,the tribunal quashed the CIT(E)’s order under Section 263, allowing the assessee’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned the Assessing Officer’s (AO) rejection of books and deleted the addition of Rs. 4,12,67,000 as unexplained income, citing the lack of evidence of specific discrepancies in the books of accounts.
The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member)set aside the AO’s rejection of the books and reversed the addition of Rs. 4,12,67,000 under Section 68 of the Act. All grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, underscoring that assumptions alone were insufficient grounds for rejecting books and making income additions. In conclusion the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reduced the commission income addition to 0.50% on bank transactions in an income tax appeal filed by the assessee, who was engaged in cheque discounting and money transfer, citing it as a reasonable rate based on the nature of the business and precedents in similar cases.
Additionally, the assessee contested an addition of Rs. 1.20 lakh under section 69A, which was alleged to have been given to M/s Hari Corporation. However, as no specific grounds were raised on this issue before the CIT(A), the tribunal rejected the assessee’s argument. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the commission rate being reduced to 0.50%, but the addition of Rs. 1.20 lakh was upheld.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate cash deposits of Rs. 12,03,000 that were added as unexplained income during the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2017-18.
The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and restored the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. It directed the AO to grant the assessee an opportunity for hearing before passing any order and advised the appellant to be more vigilant in future proceedings. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to assessee, by restricting the disallowance of Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees State Insurance ( ESI ) contributions, based on the timely payment of the employer’s contributions under section 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Prakash Chand Yadav ( Judicial Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) decided to restore the matter to the A.O. for verification and directed that relief be granted to the assessee for the employer’s contributions. The disallowance was to be limited to the employee’s contributions. The Tribunal also dismissed the additional grounds raised by the assessee, as no arguments were presented in support of them. In conclusion,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance of Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance ( ESI ) contributions on the grounds that they were deposited after the statutory deadlines, making them ineligible for deduction under income tax law.
Therefore, the tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the delayed PF/ESI contributions. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed.
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore the assessee’s appeal was allowed recognizing Medical Certificate as sufficient proof for condonation of taxpayer’s delay in filing of audit report.
The board directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of assessee as per direction of CBDT. Thus the appeal of assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) paid by the assessee should not be included while computing the gross receipts under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the case of Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, the key issue was whether the service tax collected by the assessee should be included in the total amount paid or payable for computing presumptive tax under Section 44BB(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling clarified that service tax reimbursement is not to be included in the aggregate amount when calculating profits and gains under Section 44BB. Thus, considering and following the precedents by the High Court decided to concur with the observation of the assessee and thus grounds of the appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Hyderabad recently quashed an Order issued by the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) – National Faceless Assessment Centre ( CIT (A) ), Delhi citing the lack of proof warranting the taxpayer to pay advance tax under the provisions of Section 209 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In light of such observation, the ITAT Bench held that the CIT(A) had erred in invoking the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while dismissing the case of the Appellant in limine. Subsequently, ITAT set aside the impugned Order of the CIT(A), while directing the NFAC to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act,1961 can be allowed based on the amount utilized out of the sale consideration towards construction of the property even if the construction is not complete
The counsel on behalf of the assessee by relying on a judgment by the Karnataka High Court, contended that the CIT( A ) had rightfully allowed the claim of assessee under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.The ITAT bench upheld the decision of CIT ( A ) and allowed the exemption claimed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) as the investors proven genuine.
The bench observed that the assessee substantiated the genuineness of the investors, and no addition is sustained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Statute. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal against the Section 263 order is allowed. The ITAT bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bench remanded the Matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for Production of Payment Challans in regard to the Delayed PF and ESIC Payments.
The court directed the assessee to produce the necessary challans for proof of payments in light of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Also the assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing and assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed the addition of Rs.34 Lakh made by an Assessing Officer to the income of an Assessee on account of unexplained cash deposit. The ITAT while adjudicating the matter also refuted the actions of the lower adjudicatory bodies in not permitting the Assessee to adduce additional evidence that had been contended to be integral to the case at hand.
In light of the observations made, ITAT set aside the matter and redirected the file back to the concerned AO with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh. Further instructions were issued to the AO to entertain the additional evidence and any other evidence that may be produced by the Assessee at the time of hearing.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that Income Tax addition is not applicable on the interest income from government project funds deposited as the interest was entirely remitted back to the central/ state government and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ).
The bench held that after verifying if it is found that the entire interest income has been remitted back to the Central Govt./ State Govt., then there should be no addition on both the interest income earned on its deposits ( FD and SB A/c ).
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), New Delhi it was ruled that an assessment against a non-existent entity cannot be rectified by invoking Section 292 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, comprising Accountant member Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar observed that the legal issue was in favor of assessee and quashed the assessment order. Thus the appeal filed by revenue was dismissed.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs.53.23 Lakhs on cash deposits during the demonetization period and directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to re-compute the income of the assessee.
The tribunal also highlighted that there was no legal requirement for the timing of deposits, thus finding the AO’s reasoning unsupported. As a result, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.53.23 lakhs and directed the AO to recompute the income, allowing the appeal. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the entire bank credit of the assessee should be treated as business receipts for income estimation under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act,1961.
As a result, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the assessment by including the entire amount as business receipts and adjusting the income accordingly.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reassessment, allowing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the Rs. 51.20 Lacs cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the case to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to present the necessary evidence to support his claim.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
