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 ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], rejecting the Revenue’s claim of Rs. 8.77 Crore income understatement. It confirmed that the amount in question represented booking advances for flat sales, not income from consultancy services.
The GST was reported correctly, but this did not make the amount taxable under the Income Tax Act. The AO’s treatment of the amount as income was incorrect. As the Revenue did not challenge the CIT(A)’s findings, the order was upheld, and the Revenue’s ground was dismissed. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently remanded an Income Tax Appeal filed by Housing and Urban Development Corporation ( HUDCO ), while maintaining that prior period expenses may be integrated into the income tax assessment for the current Assessment Year if they had not been claimed as deductions during the prior year under consideration.
The two-member Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member attested to the submissions of HUDCO, affirming that “once it is proved that the said expenditure is not claimed as deduction in earlier years, then the same would be squarely allowable as deduction during the year under consideration”, allowing the claim of the Assessee.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently directed an Assessing Officer ( AO ) to disallow 1% of dividend income as expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period prior to the onset of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
In light of the precedential nature of the Delhi High Court decision, ITAT directed the AO to disallow 1% of the dividend income as expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently deleted additions of Rs. 1.2 crore made by an Assessing Officer (AO) on the basis of alleged ‘human probabilities’ that the disputed income had not been gained from the sale of shares, but was a method of facilitating tax evasion.
The Bench referred the decision of the Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Ziauddin A Siddique (2017) where the High Court upheld the decision of the Tax Tribunals while vitiating the Revenue’s claim of alleged tax evasion on the basis of mere probability, observing that the Assessee had conducted all concerned financial transactions through official channels and adduced documentation verifying the same. Vitiating the Revenue’s claim on the basis of the Principle of Human Probabilities, ITAT allowed the Appeals by the Assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the file in which penalty was imposed on the assessee for fresh adjudication due to procedural lapses and lack of hearing opportunity to the assessee.
Due to the pending of the quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), the bench restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) and was of the opinion that it would be appropriate to decide the penalty appeal only after the quantum proceeding is decided and to consider condonation of delay only after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ITAT, comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) declared the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961,invalid due to the lack of fresh tangible material.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) concluded that in the present case, the issues were already examined during the original assessment under Section 143(3), and no new material was brought forward to justify reopening. The assessee had provided separate accounts and evidence during the original proceedings, which were duly verified. Thus, the reopening was declared invalid and void in law. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remands the income tax matter for denovo consideration as the National Faceless Assessment Centre ( NFAC ) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer ( AO ) without adverting to submissions made by the assessee.
The ITAT bench, comprising Mr. Inturi Rama Rao ( Accountant Member ) remanded the file back to the AO for proper verification of the evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) after providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to explain his case.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order, dismissing the Revenue’s challenge on the unexplained loan repayment of Rs. 1.04 Crore, based on bank statement evidence confirming the repayment transactions.
The Revenue did not challenge this finding. Since the Revenue did not provide any evidence to dispute the CIT(A)’s conclusion, the bench found no reason to interfere with his order. The Revenue’s ground was dismissed. In short, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the assessment order against the assessee, citing a time-barred reopening of assessment and an incorrect assumption of property ownership.
Based on these findings, the tribunal concluded that the notice was issued incorrectly and that all subsequent actions were invalid, setting aside the orders. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 186-day delay in filing the appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination due to an ex-parte assessment and failure by the assessee to adequately represent its case.
In the interest of justice, the tribunal remanded the case to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to provide the necessary supporting documents, and the AO was instructed to give proper notice before passing any order. Ultimately,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case for reassessment regarding Rs. 9.74 lakh in unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period,allowing the assessee to submit supporting evidence for the deposits.
Based on the facts and documents presented, the tribunal decided that the assessee should be allowed to submit the required documents to the AO, set aside the AO’s order, restored the case for a fresh hearing, and directed the AO to review the documents and issue a new order. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the reassessment proceedings against the assessee, on the grounds of non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The tribunal agreed that section 292BB did not apply, as it only addresses issues of notice service, not its absence. Since the notice under section 143(2) was not issued, the tribunal found the assessment proceedings invalid. The assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 was set aside, and the assessee’s appeal on this ground was allowed. As the reassessment proceedings were quashed, the other grounds of appeal were left open. The appeal was partly allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that interest income derived from FDRs with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80 P (2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 24.5 lakhs.
It was observed by the bench that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act is available with respect to interest derived by a cooperative society from its investment with any other cooperative society. The bench held that the cooperative banks are essentially cooperative societies.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently set aside the rejection order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the applicant trust’s registration .Along with a cost of Rs. 4,000 imposed on the trust.
The appeal was disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for decision afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the applicant-appellant to comply with the directions. Additionally, the applicant-appellant trust was burdened with costs of Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ) remanded the case of the Sikkimese assessee to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for reconsideration of her tax exemption claim under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma ( Judicial Member ) and Sanjay Awasthi ( Accountant Member ) agreed with the AR’s argument and remanded the case to the AO for a fresh examination and directed the AO to reconsider the exemption claim under section 10(26AAA) and allow the assessee to submit supporting evidence. The assessee was also instructed to provide all necessary documents without delay. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to consider the reasons for the delay in filing an appeal after it was dismissed due to a 208-day delay.
The tribunal held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain the delay. The CIT(A) failed to provide this opportunity, which was essential for proper consideration. The tribunal stressed that substantial justice should outweigh technicalities and directed the assessee to submit a petition explaining the delay, for which the CIT(A) should give due consideration. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that an assessment cannot be deemed prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer ( AO ) has followed the Jurisdictional High Court’s decision prevailing at the time of assessment.
Based on this, the tribunal concluded that the case was covered by the Calcutta High Court’s decision and allowed the appeals, setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Act. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 applies only to credits received in the relevant year and not to those from earlier years.
The CIT(A) had concluded that the assessee had met its burden of proof and no addition could be made under section 68 for the current year. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the appeal. In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs. 4.82 crore made as unexplained cash credit in the case of the assessee, citing payments linked to genuine sales transactions.
The AO had treated two payments, Rs. 1,08,90,000/- and Rs. 3,73,50,000/-, as unexplained. These payments were received through State Bank for sales bills. The tribunal found that the payments were wrongly treated as unexplained and decided to set aside the CIT(A)’s order, directing the AO to delete the addition. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ordered that a reassessment of an already closed assessment must be substantiated with valid reasons. If such reasons or a productive outcome has not arisen from such reassessment proceedings, then such reopening of an assessment is bad in law.
In light of such submissions, the bench held that the reasons for CIT(A) to quash such reassessment are accurate, and the addition made by AO under Section 43(5) is unreasonable and should be deleted. The bench held that the reassessment was invalid in the eyes of the law.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the rejection of registration of Trust under Section 12 AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 due to alleged non-genuineness of activities and non-registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, warrants a de novo consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) CIT(E).
Thus, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted to the CIT(E) for decision on the application afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that duty drawback and license sale income should be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of presumptive taxation under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act,1961.
The appellate tribunal referred to previous rulings, including Sanjay Bahl vs. ITO and Smt. Urmila Tank vs. ITO, which confirmed that duty drawback is part of gross receipts. It concluded that Section 44AD applied in this case, and the assessee’s revised tax offer should be accepted, as it had been inadvertently omitted earlier. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the CIT(A) and AO’s decisions, and directed the AO to accept the revised income computation provided by the assessee.
The Visakhapatnam bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the delay shall be condoned if there is sufficient bonafide cause and not due to the negligence of the assessee.
Considering these, the ITAT condoned the delay and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee while clarifying that its decision to condone the delay should not influence the merits of the case. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed claims for goodwill depreciation from the amalgamation for the assessment years ( AY ) 2016-18 despite the 2021 finance bill exclusion.
The ITAT, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Vasat Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member), The above mentioned amendments are to take effect from 01st April 2021 and will only apply to the assessment years 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.
Recently, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable in computing book profit under Section 115JB of the act.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to computing the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the additions related to alleged bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) due to procedural lapses and denial of cross-examination rights to the assessee.
The bench, comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia ( Accountant Member ) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial Member ) was of the opinion that a grave error was committed by the AO in denying the opportunity of cross-examination by the assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that purchases treated as bogus in one financial year cannot automatically be presumed bogus in another year without sufficient evidence specific to that period.
The tribunal further observed the purchases were of finished products (fancy sarees) directly linked to subsequent sales ruling out any intent to inflate expenses via bogus entries. The tribunal held that merely treating a party as a shell company for other years cannot automatically discredit its transactions for the year under consideration. So, the tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. The appeal was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) found adequate allowed salary and rent claims made by the assessee due to adequate proof and upheld the addition of staff welfare made by the assessing officer ( AO ) due to insufficient evidence.
The Tribunal, after going through the documents submitted by the assessee, held that ‘the salary and bonus expenses, along with rent and electricity expenses, deserve to be allowed in full.’ The bench upheld the addition of Rs. 22,700 towards staff welfare expenses due to lack of evidence.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the taxability of interest income depends on the person who made the investment, not on whose name the deposit is held.
The two member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member)found no merit in the arguments of the counsel for the assessee. It noted that the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the assessee’s explanation. The taxability of interest income depends on the person who made the investment, not on whose name the deposit is held. As a result, the tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the trust’s corpus donation matter for a fresh hearing due to the trust’s non-compliance caused by the lack of awareness of notice and email id issues.
The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present facts and documents before the CIT(A). So, the tribunal concluded that the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to present its submissions and supporting documents.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore recently granted relief to Toyota, upholding the order of a Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) in which the royalty was separately benchmarked after the margin was accepted to be at Arm’s-Length Price ( ALP ) by the TPO.
Upholding the precedence of the prior decision by the ITAT in the Assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, the Tribunal proceeded to reject the grounds raised by the Revenue; the cross-appeals being counter to the main appeals were held to become infructuous in this instance.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the 10% tolerance band under Section 43CA introduced by the Finance Act, 2020 to address stamp duty valuation discrepancies applies retrospectively.
The tribunal confirmed that the amendments were remedial, aimed at addressing unintended consequences so it should apply retrospectively from the date the provision came into effect. The tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal and directed the AO to verify cases falling within the 10% tolerance band and allow relief accordingly.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the appeal filed by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for de novo adjudication, upholding that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit.
The two member bench comprising Dr.B.R.R Kumar ( Vice President ) and Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) upon reviewing the order of the CIT(A), noted that the issue had not been adjudicated on its merits. Since the appeal was filed on time and the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits, the tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a valid notice of hearing sent to the assessee via email. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reconsideration of the ₹13.35 lakh unexplained cash deposit addition due to non-consideration of key evidence, including proof of his fish trading business and related payments.
It was observed that the CIT(A) relied only on part of the information provided by the assessee, overlooking key details such as the previous year’s accepted business income, payments made by cheque for fish-seeds, and the existence of a valid business license. Since the CIT(A) failed to account for these facts, the tribunal decided to remand the case for reconsideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore recently affirmed that deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be availed on interest income received from co-operative societies or banks.
With respect to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala State (supra), the Bench restored the matter back to the concerned Assessing Officer to examine whether the interest income is received from Co-operative Society or Co-operative Banks. While allowing the present Appeal, ITAT clarified that if the interest income was found to have been received from Co-operative Society, then the same shall be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue as the bench was of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 14.3 crores made by the assessing officer ( AO ) was not supported by any incriminating evidence.
The ITAT observed that there was no adverse incriminating material or document found in the premises of the searched person based on which the addition was made. The bench did not find any infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the order passed by the CIT( A ).
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the penalty for non-compliance with assessing officer notices stating that the assessee being an Indian Oil Corporation employee failed to fulfill tax obligations despite being aware of procedural responsibilities.
The tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide any plausible explanation for the non-compliance with the notices. The tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) confirmed that taxpayers can claim loan interest deductions under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act even if they have already claimed similar deductions under Section 24(b). The tribunal clarified that amendments to Section 48 will apply only from Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25 onwards.
For the relevant assessment year (2014-15), the tribunal explained that the amendment did not apply and ruled that the interest expenditure was indeed part of the cost of acquisition. So, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,90,78,228 made by the AO and allowed the appeal.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that procedural delays, such as late Form 67 filing, cannot invalidate a taxpayer’s right to claim a Foreign Tax Credit ( FTC ) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ).
The tribunal concluded that procedural delays should not hinder substantive claims like FTC when the claim is genuine and supported by tax payments in the foreign jurisdiction. The tribunal allowed the appeal directing the CPC to grant the FTC of Rs. 75,000 to the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after finding that the lower authorities failed to adequately consider the evidence provided by the assessee regarding bank deposits.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra R.Kamble(Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar(Accountant Member) noted that the Revenue authorities had not fully considered the assessee’s evidence and decided to remand the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh review. The CIT(A) was instructed to issue a new notice to the assessee and adjudicate the matter, ensuring timely compliance and disposal of the case.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Section 263 revision order and annulled the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] order due to the invalidity of the assessment.
At the beginning of the hearing, both parties acknowledged that the Tribunal had quashed the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(PCIT) under Section 263 on 01.10.2024. Since the Section 263 order was invalidated, the subsequent proceedings were also deemed invalid. As a result, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was annulled.
In a recent ruling, the Vishakapatanam bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the 1 day delay is not a delay in filing the income tax appeal belatedly. The bench restored the gratuity addition matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
In light of the principles and the judicial precedents, the bench of Balakrishnan S. (Accountant member) and K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial member) restored the matter to the CIT(A) directing to provide reasonable opportunity. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
In a recent ruling, the Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the disallowance made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) on account of delayed Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI) payments was adequate and should be allowed. The tribunal added that it cannot be excused unless there is a valid reason for such delay.
The two member bench of ITAT consisting of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) held that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd, is to be followed. The bench found that the Surat Bench of ITAT had dismissed a similar appeal in the case Shri Raghukul Textprints Pvt, Ltd. vs. DCIT and held the addition of 1Lakh made by the CPC along with the order of the CIT(A) to be adequate. As a result, the appeal made by the assessee was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh consideration and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the assessee for non-compliance with notices.
The appellate tribunal noted the assessee’s repeated non-compliance despite receiving four notices from the CIT(A) and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000, to be paid within two weeks. The CIT(A) was instructed to proceed only after verifying the payment. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restores the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh assessment on the carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, citing incomplete evaluation of the merger impact.
Though the assessee’s Writ Petition was dismissed, the order was stayed, and the appeal was admitted. The tribunal found that the AO had not given the assessee a proper opportunity before making the additions. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the bench sent the case back to the AO, instructing them to wait for the Madras High Court’s decision and give the assessee a chance to be heard. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
