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 tax deduction for the defect liability provision, citing reasonable estimates and industry practices.
The two-member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ), following the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. JMC Projects India Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 194 of 2017), found no merit in the Revenue’s appeal about the defect liability provision.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to rectify the intimation by the Central Processing Centre because of the rejection of Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claim due to technical default.
The tribunal observed that the rejection arose from procedural shortcomings rather than the claim’s merit. The tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to rectify the CPC’s intimation and conduct a fresh assessment. The assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case of Abdulrahim Yakubbhai Gudala 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 Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order. It remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fair opportunity to present his case.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside an enhancement of Rs. 90.52 crores made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), holding that the CIT(A) had erred in treating the loan amount as income from undisclosed sources under sections 69A and 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Upon review, the ITAT Bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara ( Judicial Member ) and Shi M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) observed that the CIT(A) had erred in upholding the AO’s disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 5,47,39,150 under section 69C and adding the principal loan amount of Rs. 90.52 crores under sections 69A/69B. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) enhancement relied heavily on the AO’s initial doubts without robust factual backing.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case back to the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ) for fresh adjudication of its section 11(1A) exemption claim, highlighting the inadequate discussion in the impugned order.
The two-member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara ( Judicial Member ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A)-NFAC to provide detailed adjudication and frame points of discussion as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reconsideration, noting that the CIT(A) deleted income tax additions under Income Tax Act,1961 (ITA) made by the Revenue without considering the Assessing Officer’s observations.
The ITAT bench of Mr Rifaur Rahman and Mr Sudhir Kumar concurred with the Revenue’s argument, noting that the CIT(A) had failed to provide detailed reasoning for dismissing the AO’s findings. The Tribunal stressed the need for a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi recently clarified that the time of uploading the Order by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) onto the Income Tax Business Application ( ITBA ) Portal is to be deemed as the ‘time of dispatch’ of the Order towards the concerned Assessee.
The ITAT Bench, composed of M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member, observed that a cohesive reading of Section 130 and 144B of the Act read together with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 indicates that dispatch by the DRP is deemed to be complete the moment the DRP uploads the concerned document onto the ITBA Portal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee following a request for withdrawal due to the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024.
After considering the submission made by the assessee’s counsel, the two-member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, recently granted relief to Cheil India by affirming that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses incurred by them in light of contributions towards Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh qualify for tax deductions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, constituted by Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Sudhir Pareek, Judicial Member laid careful consideration to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal in the case of M/s Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) which relied wholly on the decision in Interglobe Technology Quotient Private Limited Vs ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi (2024).
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that undisclosed income is to be computed based on the principle of real income and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The bench observed that, due to the assessee’s failure to file relevant evidence, the CIT(A) considered the assessee’s gross profits for the previous two years and estimated a profit margin of 6%. The ITAT, comprising Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) and T. R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi Bench, recently directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)-NFAC) to reassess a case involving alleged unexplained cash deposits by an assessee and pass a reasoned order after considering the evidence submitted by the said assessee.
After examining the case, the bench of Judicial Member Madhumita Roy noted that the appellant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence in the earlier stages should not preclude a fair examination of the case.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the peak credit assessed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], owing to the circular transactions.
The ITAT bench of Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member S R Raghunatha noted that taxing the total deposits without recognising the nature of these transactions would lead to unjust enrichment of the Revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, recently ruled in favour of an assessee by deleting an addition of ₹13.60 lakhs under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (ITA), noting that the addition was made without any incriminating evidence.
At the hearing, the tribunal bench of Mr Satbeer Singh Godara and Mr M Balaganeshl observed that the assessment year was “unabated,” implying that it could not be reopened unless incriminating material was unearthed during the search. However, upon examining the records, the tribunal noted a glaring absence of such evidence. The judicial members referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023), which established that additions in unabated assessments must be based solely on seized material.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT )’s Section 263 revision order issued in the name of a deceased taxpayer, citing procedural lapses.
Based on the facts, the two-member bench, comprising Dr BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member), concluded that the PCIT had failed to pass a valid order under Section 263 of the Act. The tribunal, therefore, found the order invalid.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) ordered the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] to grant registration under Section 12AB,of the Income Tax ACt,1961, finding no exemption claim under Section 11 for the Assessment Year(AY) 2022-23 after the Centralized Processing Centre(CPC) denial. Swaminarayan Satsangis Organisation ,appellant-assessee, challenged the order passed by CIT(E) on 29/08/2024, denying the grant of registration under section 12AB of the Act.The counsel for the assessee argued that the denial of registration by the CIT(E) was based on an incorrect understanding of the facts.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)ordered a fresh hearing by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] in the Rs. 1.65 crore cash deposit case on grounds of non-compliance.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) examined the case and listened to both parties. In the interest of justice, the matter was referred back to CIT(A) for a fresh review, with instructions to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard. It was also noted that if the assessee remained non-compliant, the CIT(A) could take appropriate action based on the available records.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi recently granted relief to Hyundai Rotem, declaring that a delay in assessment following the dispatch of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order shall result in an Assessment Order that is null and Void.
The ITAT observed that the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in Nikon India Private Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) is squarely applicable to the present case. It was held that Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, may be applicable when ascertaining the time the DRP uploaded the DRP order onto the ITBA Portal.
Since the DRP Order was uploaded on the ITBA Portal on 26.05.2022, the final assessment was statutorily required to be completed on or before 30.06.2022. Identifying that the evaluation was completed only on 01.07.2022, the ITAT ruled such an assessment null and void, setting aside the order in relief to the Assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi Bench, quashed the reassessment order against an assessee, noting that the Revenue had reopened the assessment without mandatory application of mind. The assessee/ appellant is Sh: Birpal, a resident of Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
The tribunal scrutinised the evidence, comprising Judicial Member Shri Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Shri M. Balaganesh. It observed that the PCIT’s approval did not reflect an independent evaluation of the facts, as required under law. Despite being given ample opportunity, the Department failed to rebut this contention with substantive evidence or legal arguments. The tribunal concluded that the PCIT’s lack of due application of mind invalided the reassessment proceedings. Citing the S. Goyanka Lime judgment and other precedents submitted by the appellant, the ITAT stressed that approval under Section 151 of the tax statute is not a mere formality but a vital safeguard to prevent arbitrary reassessments.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the principles of natural justice by setting aside the ex-parte order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) set aside the impugned order. It restored the matter to the AO for de-novo consideration, instructing that the appellant be allowed to present its case and directing the AO to give the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, has ordered fresh consideration in a case in which non-compliance with tax regulations was attributed to technical difficulties with the income tax portal. The case involved the assessee/appellant, Krupal Vikrambhai Patel, an Ahmedabad resident.
In its decision, the bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment. The tribunal ordered the authorities to reassess the case, granting the appellant sufficient opportunity to submit evidence and respond to the allegations comprehensively. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) regarding an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
A two-member Bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) held that the assessee should cooperate with this final opportunity by filing all required documents and evidence in support of its grounds raised before CIT(A).
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be claimed for the same income if deductions under Section 80IA have already been availed. Inox India Limited, the assessee, is a company that manufactures vacuum-insulated tanks and related products. During the assessment years under consideration (2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05), the assessee claimed deductions under Section 80HHC ( profits from exports ) and Section 80IA ( income derived from eligible industrial undertakings ).
The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) analyzed prior judicial rulings and observed that in cases like Atul Intermediates ( Gujarat High Court ) and Shah Alloys Ltd ( Gujarat High Court ), it was held that Section 80IA(9) prevents simultaneous deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IA.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that Inox India’s lease rental income derived from leasing out unsold vacuum-insulated tanks manufactured by the company qualifies as “Business Income” rather than “Income from Other Sources.”
The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) observed that the leased tanks were manufactured by the company which is directly linked the income to the manufacturing activity. Thus, the tribunal ruled that Lease rental income derived from leasing out unsold vacuum-insulated tanks was held to be “Business Income” due to its direct connection with the company’s manufacturing and business activities.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an income tax appeal on limitation grounds after condoning the delay. Rambadal Dhunmum Yadav, the appellant-assessee, approached the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) against the Assessment Order passed on January 10, 2013.
However, the appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) due to a 65-day delay in filing the appeal.
The two member Bench comprising of Dr. BRR Kumar(Vice-President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) reviewed the case and noted that the appellant did not appear before the CIT(A) or explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the case is being sent back to the CIT(A) to assess the reason for the delay properly and decide whether to accept it, along with the issues raised by the appellant. The appellant is instructed to cooperate fully with the process and submit the necessary documents on time. If there are any further delays, the CIT(A) can take appropriate action. The appellant will also be given a fair chance to present their case, following proper procedures.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], due to failure to provide a fair hearing to the assessee and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. Kamlesh Babalal Shah,appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 7.2.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The two member bench comprising Pawan Singh(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) therefore set aside the order and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, instructing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also advised to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Recently, The New Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) set aside the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Sufi Kathak Foundation,the appellant-assessee was denied a tax exemption for the year 2018-19.The Reason for denial was that the organisation filed its tax return and audit report late.
The Bench Composed of Mahavir Singh(Vice-President) and Pradip Kumar Kedia(Accountant Member) held that the CIT(A)’s decision to deny the benefit on this basis is incorrect and should be cancelled. The CPC/JAO is instructed to reconsider the extended due date when determining the eligibility for the claim under sections 11 & 12 of the Act.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the rejection of Tax exemption by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),citing non-compliance with charitable trust criteria as the appellant Fails to Meet Charitable Purpose Criteria Under Section 2(15) and 80G of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench composed of S.S. Viswanethra Ravi(Judicial Member) and Jagdish(Accountant Member) observed that the activity of the assessee, such as organizing historic car rallies, does not qualify as a “charitable purpose” as defined under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the CIT(E) pointed out. The assessee did not provide any evidence to support their claim. Additionally, since the assessee does not have registration under Section 12AB, they cannot receive approval under Section 80G. Therefore, based on the reasons provided by the CIT(E), we find no issue with rejecting the application in Form 10AB for 80G approval. As a result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore recently recognized the failure by the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) ( CIT(A) )to adequately consider furnished documents in an income tax appeal pertaining to the setting off of a disputed Rs.41,44,319, and proceeded to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for consideration of the documents already furnished.
The two-member Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, constituted by George George K.,Vice President, and Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member, considered the submissions of either party. The bench observed that the Appellant had filed voluminous documents in paper books before it and certified that no additional evidence had been filed.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded Power Equipment Company’s case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ) for re-examination of the assessee’s tax returns and passed an order on merit. The Appellant assessee—Power Equipment Company, appealed against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) dated 12.06.2024 for the assessment year (AY) 2020-21, disputing the addition made under Section.
The ITАT benсh, comprising Judicial Member Рawan Singh and Аccountant Mеmbеr Bijayananda Рruseth, concluded that thе delay in filing the appeal was neithеr deliberate nor due tо negligence by thе аssessee. Рrioritizing substantiаl justice over technicalities, thе benсh remanded thе mаtter tо thе CIТ(А) for vеrification оf thе сlaim and directed a dеcision on merit, thereby allowing the appeal.
Recently, Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside a penalty of Rs. 58.97 lakh imposed by the Assessing Officer ( AO ), noting that the issue of disallowance of a claim of Rs. 1,73,51,790 was debatable and not a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd., the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), dated 26.03.2024, which upheld the penalty of Rs. 58,97,870 levied by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the disallowance of a claim of Rs. 1,73,51,790 as a business loss or bad debt.
The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) against the assessee on agricultural expenses as undisclosed income under Section 69(c) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Ajay Ravjibhai Patel. The assessee Ajay Ravijibhai Patel pursued an appeal against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 28.01.24 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17.
The ITAT bench, comprising Pawan Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Bijyananda Pruseth ( Accountant Member ), realised that the proper course of action would be to reduce the exempted agricultural income by Rs.10,28,410 —instead of adding the undisclosed income of Rs.7,83,093—estimated by the AO. Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the addition made by the AO for undisclosed income to be deleted, and as a result, the appeal was allowed.
The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in the case of Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra, ordered for reassessment in the case of an alleged fraud case highlighting the importance of upholding the principles of Natural Justice. In the Instant case, the assessee, Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra, filed four appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. Two appeals are against an order under Section 147 of the Act, and the other two are against the penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for the AYs as mentioned above.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore in a recent matter held that no addition may be made by an Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the event that imported assets were provided to the Assessee free of cost, exclusively for the purpose of testing which were either returned or destroyed post-testing, and where the pricing of the assets were determined by means of the Mutual Agreement Procedure ( MAP ).
The Income Tax Appeal was filed by Samsung R&D Institute India (Samsung) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 Bangalore ( CIT(A) ) with regards to the financials of the Assessee for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] due to inadequate reasoning and failure to frame points of determination regarding the Rs. 29.32 lakh unexplained investment, as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Firoz Pasha,appellant-assessee,has filed an appeal against the order dated 29.11.2023, issued by the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (INFAC), for the assessment year (AY)2012-13, concerning proceedings under section 250 of the Act.
A single member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) decided to remand the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the assessee being given three opportunities to present their case and the responsibility to prove all relevant facts in the proceedings.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reduces the penalty levied upon the appellant by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Jayasakthi Knit Wear,appellant-assessee approached the Tribunal against the decision made by CIT(A0. The primary issue raised by the assessee pertains to the order passed by the CIT(A), which upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The penalty, amounting to Rs. 40,000, was levied for the assessee’s failure to respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) on four separate occasions. The assessee’s defense is that due to significant financial losses incurred in the business, the assessee was unable to respond to the notices, which led to a state of depression. As a result, the assessee contends that the failure to comply with the AO’s notices was not willful but rather a consequence of the mental distress caused by the financial setbacks. Furthermore, the assessee submitted an affidavit requesting leniency, seeking a reconsideration of the penalty on humanitarian grounds. Despite this, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty, confirming the levy of Rs. 40,000.
The Ahmedabad 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.
Prashant Bharatkumar Shah, the appellant-assessee, had an assessment order passed against him by the Income Tax Officer, with an addition of ₹1,35,28,150 under Section 69, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. In response, he filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed by order dated 24/05/2024. This dismissal by the CIT(A) is the subject of the current challenge.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] to conduct a fresh hearing after dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. It imposed a ₹5,000 cost to be paid to the “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” for the delay caused by non-attendance.
Sandip Kiritbhai Patel HUF,appellant-assessee, filed its income tax return for AY 2013-14, declaring Nil income. The case was reopened based on information that it had benefited from bogus LTCG and accommodation entries through VAS Infra Ltd and Naresh Jain. The Assessing Officer(AO) made additions under Section 68 as the entries remained unexplained.
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in a recent ruling, rejected a cooperative bank’s claim of bank debt reserves under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, stating the authenticity of such claims. Surat National Co.op Bank Ltd the assessee, pursued two appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ) on 03.10.2024 and 19.01.2023, for the assessment years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The two-member bench consisting of Pawan Singh ( Judicial member ) and Binjayananda Pruseth ( Accountant Member ) rejected the AO’s allegation that the assessee had claimed a double deduction. It held that the accounting system followed by the assessee resulted in only one deduction. The tribunal further observed that there was a delay in recognising the loss, but it was an issue that the RBI had to sort. As a result the bad debt claim made by the assessee was rejected.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore while hearing an Income Tax Appeal, endorsed the medical reasons cited by the Appellant while praying for the condonation of delay to file the appeal, after due payment of the requisite fees to file the appeal.
The Assessee, Narayanappa Gondaraju filed their returns of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring a gross total income of Rs.8,83,217. Subsequently, in 2018 a search was conducted in Bangalore by the Department with regards to another Assessee by the name of T.Suresh which revealed additional details regarding the Assessee’s case.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case involving unsecured loans of Rs.1.42 crore back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Bhupendra Shantilal Shah,the appellant-assessee filed his income tax return for the year 2017-18 on 27th March 2018, declaring an income of Rs 9,97,030. His return was selected for detailed review because of large cash deposits during the demonetization period and the size of the deposits compared to his declared income.
The two member Bench of Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) without going into the merits of the case set aside the order of CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) , also directed the CIT(A) to verify the authenticity, completeness, and relevance of the documents submitted, also to provide a reasonable opportunity to the AO to examine the additional evidence and ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed by allowing the assessee a fair hearing.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, imposing a cost of Rs.10,000 on the assessee for non-compliance with notices. Anmol Developers, appellant-assessee, a firm engaged in real estate business, failed to file its regular return of income for A.Y. 2017-18, prompting the Assessing Officer to issue notices under Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act.
The two-member bench comprising TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) observed that the Assessing Officer’s addition of Rs. 7.22 crores required verification, and thus, set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and restored the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the issue afresh.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
