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 Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 50-day delay in filing an appeal and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice.
The two member bench comprising Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) therefore decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present the case.The CIT(A) was directed to re-evaluate the appeal on its merits and condoned the initial 50 day delay,urging the assessee to cooperate fully with the remand proceedings and any failure from the part of the assessee no liberality will be shown. As a result the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) was recently faced with a matter wherein an Assessee’s Cash Deposits in their Savings Bank Account were treated as ‘Unexplained Money’. The ITAT proceeded to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh assessment.
Concludingly, the ITAT, being wary of the AO’s adoption of a wrong mechanism while adjudicating the Assessee’s case, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the amount withdrawn from the Bank Account by way of cash should be deemed to be available for subsequent deposit; the balance amount, if any, after being reduced by the income already returned, may be brought to tax.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently set aside the addition of Rs.46,58,891/- made to an Income Tax Assessment passed under Sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the lack of opportunity provided to the Assessee to adduce evidence to contest his case.
In light of such observation, the ITAT remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer while issuing directions to conduct the assessment afresh, and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
The Visakhapatnam bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an incorrect addition made by the assessing officer who mistakenly added declared turnover as unexplained income. The tribunal also lowered the income estimation rate at 4%.
Coming to the estimation, the tribunal noted that there was a lack of material evidence to justify an 8% income estimation rate in the assessee’s business and ruled that 4% would be more fair. So, the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed.
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Condoned the delay and restored the Matter to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as sufficient reasons were submitted by AVA Resources Private Limited, the assessee for the delay caused in the filing of appeal. So the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the reason stated by the assessee.
So the bench finally condoned the delay of 35 days in filing the Appeal before the CIT (A) and ordered the restoration of matter to the file of CIT(A) to decide the Appeals of Assessee in accordance with law by providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the reassessment notice, which was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1960, as it was issued beyond the statutory time frame.
The ITAT bench comprising of Mr. Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Mr. Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The bench was of the view that the issuance of the notice was bad in law and set aside the consequent orders passed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, as infructuous, after the trust had filed a fresh application for registration within the extended deadline.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha(Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal as infructuous and directed the CIT(E) to process the new application in accordance with the law.
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who deleted the addition of Rs.3.53 crores on Assessee’s return of income for the assessment year(A.Y) 2015-16, made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) on account of an unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The ITAT, comprising Pawan Singh ( Judicial member ), held that CIT(A) decided on such deletion based on verifying a basic fact: most of that loan was received in earlier years. It was reflected in the audited accounts of those assessment years, and no alternative decision was taken in those years, thereby making such transactions legitimate. Based on this ground, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of revenue.
The Nagpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), on hearing two parallel cases, held that no legal action including Income Tax can be proceed by or against the party whose liquidation order is passed. On the interpretation of such a legal provision, the bench dismissed both the appeals before it.
The ITAT, comprising of Shri V.Durga Rao ( Judicial member ) and Shri K.M.Roy ( Accountant Member ), also considered an order passed by the Tribunal’s Mumbai bench in the case of Prathibha Industries Ltd. v/s DCIT in which it was held by the tribunal that, when a liquidation order is passed under Section 52 of the IBC, no suit or legal proceedings shall be taken by or against the said party. The bench studied all such judicial pronouncements carefully and gave an order dismissing the appeal made by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee’s continuous non-compliance.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) reviewed these precedents and the assessee’s continuous non-compliance. It concurred with the CIT(A) in affirming the AO’s decision. As a result, the tribunal found no grounds to intervene with the order and dismissed the appeal.
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi the assessee’s appeal was dismissed due to absence of representation in the appeals filed in previous assessment years.
The tribunal comprising Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Rifaur Rahman observed that since the appeals filed by the assessee in other assessment years such as 2010-11 and 2013-14 with same issues are were exactly similar to the appeals filed in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and since there was no representation from the assessee, therefore the bench deemed it fit to dismiss the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by revenue in AY 2012-13 was allowed.
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration as the Assessee has failed to prove the unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Needless to say reasonable opportunities shall be given to the assessee and is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, he shall not be entitled to any leniency. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the tribunal added.
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal challenging the approval of Assessment Order Under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the Assessing Officer (AO) has approved the assessment order as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Since, the facts in other AY’s i.e. 2015-16 & 2016-17 were exactly similar, the tribunal found the AY 2012-13 are applicable mutatis mutandis in AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17. Accordingly, the other appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upholds reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of Income Tax Act,1961, citing sufficient reasons for the reopening and compliance with the limitation period.
It further observed that the cited judgments from the Jurisdictional High Court were not relevant, as the case involved concrete transactions that warranted verification, especially given the absence of a filed return of income by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was upheld as appropriate.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the unexplained investment and loss set-off due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee.
The assessee was to be given a fair opportunity to present their case, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The AO was to adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law after verifying all relevant information. In short, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismisses the appeal filed by assessee, as withdrawn, pending the outcome of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 application.
The two member bench comprising George George K(Vice President) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member)dismissed the appeal based on the letter submitted by the assessee, while allowing the option to file a petition for reinstatement if the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, was not accepted by the Revenue. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh hearing, allowing the assessee, another opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal.
It was felt that justice and fairness required a fresh opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for further proceedings. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled in favor of the assessee, and struck down the taxation of a loan in the incorrect assessment year (AY) 2018-2019.
Regarding the assessee’s argument against protective assessment, the tribunal noted it was not raised before the CIT(A) or through an application, so it refrained from addressing the issue. In short,the appeal was allowed.
The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The ITAT, comprising of V Durga Rao ( Judicial Memeber ) and K.M. Roy ( Accountant Member ), by relying on several judgements held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit as the AO accepted the reduction of the subsidy from the written down value and did not adjust the depreciation claimed.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter of business income estimation for reconsideration citing the assessee’s failure to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to genuine health issues.
The tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. The tribunal asked the assessee to fully cooperate this time. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed full Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) credit for commission agents citing CBDT Circular No. 452 which clarifies that only commission income and not gross sales proceeds should be treated as taxable turnover.
The tribunal confirmed that the CBDT Circular is directly applicable to the assessee’s case. As a Kaccha Arahtia, only commission income should be considered for turnover and the TDS credit should be proportionate to the commission income. Referencing this tribunal ruling in the case of Thota Venkateswarlu vs. ITO and Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO, the tribunal directed the AO to grant credit for the entire amount deducted at TDS.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that, Goods and Services Tax should not be added while computing Deemed Income under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
As a result, it was held that GST could not be included in income computations under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the minority view of a DRP member that GST should not form part of deemed income under Section 44B, ruling in favour of the assessee.
ITAT Remits Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Consideration of Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal [Read Order] Muniyappa Srinivasa Gowda vs ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1408
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh consideration of the condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Recognizing the importance of justice, the tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. It directed the CIT(A) to reevaluate the condonation application and address the appeal on its merits after ensuring due process. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ( ITAT ) the tribunal had directed Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ( CITA ) to restore and review the Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee to examine the payment of Admitted tax amount.
The Tribunal comprising Mr. George George K, Vice President, observed that the issue shall be restored to the files of CIT(A) for examination on payment of admitted tax, and if the tax is found to be paid then the case shall be adjudicated on merits.Therefore the appeal filed by assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to the assessee, by condoning a six-year delay in filing an appeal and remanding the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for adjudication on unresolved tax additions including discrepancies in income and Form 26AS.
The tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to address the unresolved issues, specifically the incorrect returned income and the Form 26AS discrepancy, and directed the CIT(A) to decide these issues in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee had a fair hearing. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted partial relief on a cash deposit of Rs.35.13 lakh while remanding the vehicle sale claim to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for further verification due to incomplete documentation.
For the remaining Rs.13,53,100, the Tribunal acknowledged the net credits in the bank account at Rs.10,88,000 and allowed Rs.3,50,000 as agricultural income, previously accepted by the AO. Additionally, Rs.12,38,000 was attributed to redeposited cash withdrawals, granting the assessee relief of Rs.15,88,000. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the Rs.19,25,000 claim regarding vehicle sales and take an appropriate decision. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) addition of undisclosed income and bogus expenses due to the lack of corroborative evidence.
Given that no evidence showed the expenses were fraudulent, the tribunal determined that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) were unjustified and subsequently deleted them. The claim for additional income offered by the assessee was dismissed as not pursued, and the issue of interest under section 234B was considered consequential. Ultimately,the appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for re-examination of cash deposits and bank entries due to improper assessment. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was also imposed for non-compliance, to be paid within two weeks before the AO could proceed further.
The tribunal found the explanation for non-compliance insufficient and noted no action had been taken against the CA. A cost of Rs.20,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable within two weeks, before the AO could proceed. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) was invalid due to the expiry of the statutory time limit of 2 years under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT bench held that the time limit for passing an order under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding the financial year 2010-11 in which a statement under Section 200 of the Income Tax Act was two years from the end of the financial year in which such a statement was filed. The bench, by noting the assessment order passed by the AO, held that the order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit.
The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, as the tax effect of Rs. 56,31,819 fell below the threshold limit of Rs. 60 lakh set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) Circular No. 09/2024.
The legal issues raised by the Revenue were left unresolved, with the understanding that these matters could be adjudicated in a future appeal where the tax effect met the necessary criteria. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] directing a fair hearing in the matter concerning an addition of Rs.49.5 lakh under Section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961, due to the denial of natural justice.
The tribunal highlighted that all submissions and evidence provided by the assessee should be considered during the reassessment. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of a Rs. 4 crore addition for unexplained expenditure under section 69C of Income Tax Act,1961, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of off-book payments.
The two member bench comprising Mahavir Singh(Vice-President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal(Accountant Member) also noted contradictions in Shri A.N. Boopathy’s statement, as identified by the CIT(A), and agreed with the CIT(A)’s findings. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore Bench, has clarified that penalties levied under the Value Added Tax ( VAT ) cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal held that payments of a penal nature are not eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. However, if the payment was indeed for VAT arrears and not a penalty, it should be allowed as a deduction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi recently rejected the applicability of Protective Addition of Rs.14 Crore attributed towards Income Tax of arraigned business personality, Lalit Kumar Modi, alleging unexplained investments in Ananda Heritage Hotels P. Ltd.
In light of the same, the ITAT observed the veracity of the prior decision by the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) and upheld the deletion of Protective Tax Addition of Rs.14 Crore Against Lalit Modi.
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore an appeal filed by the assessee was allowed granting a final opportunity to the appellant to represent its case before the tribunal by canceling the issued ex-parte order on grounds of staff shortage and administrative issues.
Thus the issue raised in the appeal was restored to the file of AO and instructed the assessee to cooperate with the revenue and not seek unnecessary adjournment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi, recently confirmed income tax additions made by an Assessing Officer on prominent business personality Lalit Kumar Modi, alleging undisclosed foreign credit card expenses.
Since the Assessee had been unable to adduce any supporting explanation when called for, it indicates that he had utilized the funds through the credit cards for his personal use and that none of the actual owners had brought on record any proof or documents to claim ownership over the same. In light of the observations, the ITAT aligned with the decision of the CIT(A), upholding the additions made by the AO.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored income tax matters to grant Final Registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that S.13 of the Act is attracted during assessment and not at the grant of registration.
The ITAT, comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) and T. R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the trust, restored the file back to the CIT ( E ), and directed to grant final registration under 12AB of the Income Tax Act, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In a recent case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ( ITAT ) has directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), CIT(A) to restore and review the Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee to examine the payment of Rs. 40 lakhs, which the Assessing Officer disallowed under section 37 due to the assessee’s failure to provide adequate documentation.
Recognizing the importance of justice, the tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. It directed the CIT(A) to re-evaluate the assessee’s case and address the appeal on its merits after ensuring due process. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-examination due to the assessee’s pregnancy-related delay in submitting important documents.
The tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to reconsider the issue with the new documents and to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Appeals’ decision to delete the addition under Income tax act made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Since it was clear that the assessee has not entered into transaction with entities namely RS Enterprise and Suruchi Trading as alleged by the revenue, the Bench declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as there’s no practical effect.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal by allowing the choice for opting under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, with the liberty to reinstate the appeal if the application is not accepted.
The Appellant was represented by Sonali Khatod & the Respondent was represented by Swapna Nanu Ambatt. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ) rejected the Revenue’s claim of Rs. 39.52 lakh overstatement of purchases, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] ruling due to the discrepancy between the Goods and Service Tax( GST ) return period of 9 months and the 12-month period covered in the assessee’s books of accounts.
However, the AO overlooked that the GST return covered only 9 months, while the books of accounts were for 12 months. The CIT(A) rightly granted relief after reviewing the assessee’s explanation and confirming that there was no disparity between the books and the creditor details. As the CIT(A) correctly evaluated the facts, the tribunal dismissed the revenue’s ground. In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of incorrect interest charges under section 234A of Income Tax Act,1961 due to an erroneous due date for filing the income tax return.
Based on the precedent set in Pankaj Bansal, the tribunal ordered the deletion of interest charged under section 234A and accepted the assessee’s grounds. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled, in case of Nvidia, based on a key principle of taxation laws – when an assessment order is found to be legally invalid, any subsequent revisional orders based on it automatically become invalid as well.
This decision is a reminder of the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards laid down in the Income Tax Act. It also highlights that if an initial order is flawed, any subsequent actions or orders based on it will not hold legal ground.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory and failure to pay advance tax/self-assessment tax bars a taxpayer’s right to appeal.
The tribunal referenced tribunal rulings in Khushmanlal Hiralal (Ahmedabad Bench) and Bharatkumar Sekhsaria (Mumbai Bench) which underscored that the provision of Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory and not merely procedural, indicating that tax due must be paid to maintain the right to appeal. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to repeated failure to file returns or pay taxes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the disallowance of trading losses claimed by the assessee on alleged penny stock shares, citing insufficient evidence of price manipulation.
Therefore, the tribunal partially allowed the assessee’s appeal by validating the reopening and rejecting the price manipulation claim. Consequently, some of the disallowances were dismissed, and specific additions were struck down due to a lack of conclusive evidence.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence that was not available during the original proceedings.
The tribunal, therefore, quashed the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to consider the additional evidence, along with any further evidence the assessee might produce, and to pass a reasoned order after granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The ITAT also clarified that, in the event of non-cooperation by the assessee, the AO would be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with the law. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently remitted an Income Tax Appeal filed by Housing and Urban Development Corporation ( HUDCO ) claiming an estimated cost of 10% depreciation on the incurrence of stamp duty and registration charges. The ITAT observed that the matter was not settled and remitted the same for de novo verification.
The Bench observed that the High Court had remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo verification in the Assessee’s Income Tax Appeal pertaining to A.Y. 2003-04. In respect of the precedential nature of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT Bench restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the case is non-maintainable at the court of law, as mandated by CBDT Circular on low tax effect.
Based on submissions made by the Departmental Representative of Revenue and confirmation from the AO, the division bench consisting of Ms Suchitra Kamble( Judicial Member) and Mr Makarand V. Mahadeokar( Accountant Member) pronounced the appeal to be dismissed in the light of non-maintainability.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
