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 Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no taxability arose as there was no escapement of income on repatriating Rs.203.56 Cr. arising from redemption of non-convertible debentures ( NCDs ).
A two-member bench comprising Dr B R R Kumar, Accountant Member and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member observed that the assessee has only repatriated the amounts invested in the earlier years and hence, no taxability arises during the year. In the case of the assessee company, neither has any income accrued or arisen or is deemed to accrue or arise under that for the assessment year 2017-18 nor any claim has been under any DTAA. The Assessing Office has not examined the relevant records before them wherein the interest earned has been duly offered to tax.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that taxpayers can be allowed to furnish critical additional evidence before completing an assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am observed that the additional evidence so submitted is critical and germane for deciding the matter under consideration and given that the assessment has been completed under section 144, the assessee deserves to be allowed an opportunity to furnish the necessary explanation and documentation in support of its claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )observed that the Income Tax Addition was upheld without Application of Mind and deleted the addition. It was viewed that the authorities below have again passed the very same order without proper application of mind
A single-member bench comprising of Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member viewed that the authorities below have again passed the very same order without proper application of mind. The Tribunal set-aside the order of the authorities below and deleted the addition.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the annual letting value of unsold flats cannot be added under section 22 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of the annual let-out value ( ALV ) of the unsold flats.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member observed that the annual value of unsold flats held as stock in trade has to be considered as per the amendment in the Finance Act 2017 under section 23(5) of the Act is applicable from A.Y 2018-19. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of the annual let-out value ( ALV ) of the unsold flats and allowed the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that voluntary disallowance of an expense under section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 is not a base to treat a taxpayer as ‘assessee in default’.
A two-member bench comprising Shri M Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member held that the assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’ for mere book entries passed within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act and consequentially interest under section 201(1A) is also directed to be deleted.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the trust cannot be barred from getting the benefit of income tax deduction because it had not opted for it previously.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member viewed that taking the reasonable construction of the said provision, the assessee is well within the prescribed limitation period to apply for the final approval Under section 80G(5) of the Act.
The Delhi Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), while granting relief to the Oravel Stays Private Limited, the company which runs OYO Rooms, has ruled that the company is not obligated to pay Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ) on Minimum Guarantees Paid to Hotels. The ITAT ruled against the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,59,584 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to minimum guarantee expense
The two-member bench of Khul Bharat (Judicial Member) and N. K. Billaiya (Technical member) observed that “The contention of the ld. DR that in furtherance of its business objectives/model, the assessee is providing service, cannot be accepted as neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) have invoked the relevant provisions of the Act applicable for provisions of service. On the facts of the case, we hold that section 194C of the Act is not applicable.”
In a recent case, the Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that there is no requirement for commencement of activity for registration if trusts are already engaged in charitable activity.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Dr Dipak P Ripote, Accountant Member observed that “However, the CIT(E) has not discussed whether the Assessee fulfils all other conditions mentioned in the section as he rejected it on technical ground. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, we hold that the Assessee had made the application in form 10AB within the prescribed time limit and hence it is a valid application.”
The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the profit element in unexplained sales is to be treated under undisclosed income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT observed that CIT(A) has failed to give the benefit of the income surrendered by the assessee voluntarily against the addition confirmed by him on account of unaccounted sales.
A two-member bench comprising Smt Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Smt Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member viewed that there is no merit in the contentions of the DR that the CIT(A) ought to have applied a net profit of 12.5% in the present case.
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Mumbai shed light on the nature of royalty payments concerning the usage of brand names or trade names under a trademark license agreement, as per Section 9(1) (vi) of the India-Turkey Tax Treaty.
The tribunal, consisting of Gagan Goyal ( Accountant Member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial Member ), observed precedents, including the case of Global Cricket Corporation PTE Ltd., which deliberated on the taxability of payments received from sponsors for the use of Event marks and sign ages. The tribunal concluded that such payments do not fall under the category of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the India-Turkey Tax Treaty.
In a major ruling the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that assessee entitled to claim Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deduction in year on which corresponding Income offered to Tax on non-claiming of double deduction:
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Waseem Ahamad ( Accountant member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member) observed that if the assessee has not sought duplicate credit for TDS, they are entitled to claim TDS deduction in the year when the corresponding income has been declared for taxation and invoices have been raised on the payer. In this particular case, the assessee asserted that both the services and invoices were executed in the contested assessment year, i.e., A.Y. 2020-21, and additionally, they have not claimed TDS deduction in any previous assessment year.
In a significant ruling the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that no justification for disallowance on Ad Hoc basis, without pointing out any deficiency in books in nature of business
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the assessee was presenting any new information that had not been previously available to the tax authorities. What had been established was that, without identifying any specific defects, a portion of the expenses was dismissed on an estimated basis. Such a practice was not legally sustainable
In a significant ruling, the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the excise refund and interest subsidy received as part of announced and sanctioned incentives constitute capital receipts
Taking into consideration the point highlighted by the counsels, the tribunal of Manoj Kumar Agarwal ( Accountant member) and V. Durga Rao ( Judicial member) found that the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra), by considering its judgment in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), dismissed the appeal of the revenue and upheld the judgment of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & Others v. CIT, wherein, the High Court has held Excise refund and interest subsidy received by the assessee in pursuance to the incentives announced and sanctioned are capital receipts.
A two member bench of Jaipur Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the sale consideration as determined/adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities, has to be adopted for the purposes of computation of capital gain.Thus, the intention of the legislature is quite clear that after this amendment, it is always the Stamp Valuation to be considered and there is no warrant to replace such figure in view of such binding legal fiction
The bench comprising Rathod Kamalesh Jayantbhai ( Accountant Member ) and Sandeep Gosain ( Judicial Member ) held that “the sale consideration as determined/adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities, has to be adopted for the purposes of computation of capital gain.Thus, the intention of the legislature is quite clear that after this amendment, it is always the Stamp Valuation to be considered and there is no warrant to replace such figure in view of such binding legal fiction. The subjected transaction between the seller and the assessee buyer firm, was in accordance with the prevailing DLC rates and the Stamp Duty Authority has duly accepted the declared consideration. Thus, Sec 50C of Income Tax Act directly and strongly supports the case of the assessee.
In a recent decision the chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that sales of jewellery could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of Income Tax, Act, 1961
The corum of Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) and Manjunatha G ( Accountant member ) considered view that the AO was erred in making additions towards cash receipts received for sale of jewellery, which has been subsequently converted into sales, for the impugned assessment year as unexplained cash credits taxable under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In a recent decision the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the amount of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) can be reduced while calculating advance tax and interest under Section 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharat ( Judicial member ) and M.Balaganesh (Accountant member) observed that the payments made by HCLT to the assessee are not subject to taxation in India under domestic law. Consequently, the assessee is not required to pay advance tax, and therefore, no interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 961, can be imposed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to delete the addition under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing incorrect inclusion of additional depreciation in the computation of book profit.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising M.S. Pathmavathy ( Accountant member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) uphold the contention raised by the assessee, and we instruct the AO to eliminate the addition made to the book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, In the result, an appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has decided to delete the Income Tax addition, as it found that no deduction of Tax Deducted at source ( TDS ) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act was required for land leveling expenses.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial member ) and Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant member ) it can be inferred that the assessee was not subject to Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, in the previous year, thus exempt from TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act , for land leveling expenses. Therefore, overturned the CIT(A)’s decision and instruct the AO to remove the addition made
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has overturned the disallowance of donations for the Milan Mandir Building Fund under section 11(i)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961, nullifying the addition made to the total income of the assessee due to discrepancies in income calculation
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Suchithra Kamble ( Judicial member ) observed that donation received for the specific purpose i.e. Milan Mandir Building Fund and also invested for the said purpose/said fund as per the provisions of section 11(i)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, in the schedule bank for which the assessee has submitted the bank account therefore this aspect was not taken into consideration by the CIT (A).
The two member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Delhi, upheld the deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming the personal identity of depositors.
The tribunal comprising C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) and Dr. B.R.R.Kumar ( Accountant member ) determined that the AO rejected the evidence provided by the appellant without proving the falsity of the documents submitted by the assessee. The personal identities of these investors were established, their sources were proven, and their ITRs and subsequent repayments were examined. After thorough examination, the CIT(A) concluded that the AO was unjustified in treating the unsecured loans received under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a recent decision the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ( ITAT ) in Mumbai, observed that income earned from letting out of auditorium was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when income was applied to objects of Trust
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member ) and there was merit in the contention that whether the impugned income was incidental to the objects of the assessee trust was a debatable issue and that the AO while allowing the exemption in the order passed under Section 144 r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act has taken a possible view upon verifying the details available on record. In view of above discussions and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd ( supra )
In a major ruling the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that entire receipt of Indian rupee ( INR ) received from different entities not taxable as royalty.
The tribunal of Dr, B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Kul Bharat ( Judicial member ) allowed the assessee’s claim by holding that the receipts in question could not be taxed as “royalty”. For the same reasons herein also we hold that the entire receipt of INR 119, 88, 54,215/- received from different India entities could not be taxed as royalty.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has decided to delete the penalty under Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, as it found no inaccuracies in the particulars furnished in the Income Tax Return.
The tribunal, of Suchithra Kamble observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro-Product Pvt. Ltd. clarified that “inaccurate particulars” refer to details in the return that are not precise or correct. As the Assessing Officer did not find any inaccuracies or false details supplied by the assessee, Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, cannot be invoked. Moreover, the assessee provided detailed calculations during the assessment proceedings regarding interest on borrowed funds, which were subsequently added by the Assessing Officer.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld a penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to furnish proper Income Tax Return ( ITR ).
The coram of Kuldip Singh ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) observed that failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, such person shall pay by way of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, Since, both the penalty under Section 271(1) Income Tax Act, as well as penalty under Section 270A Income Tax Act, could be initiated if the Assessing Officer or other authority prescribed may consider so under the proceeding of the Act. Therefore, the issue decided by Allahabad High Court ( supra ) respectfully following the finding, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In a significant ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the invocation of under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the failure to explain the amount found credited in the books.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Prashanth Maharishi ( Accountant member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadale ( Judicial member ) believed that the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT (A)] had issued a well-founded and conclusive order. Therefore, the bench did not identify any shortcomings in the CIT (A)’s decision and upheld it accordingly.
The single member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Hyderabad, directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition of agricultural income, substantiating that the father’s gift to his son was supported by evidence.
The tribunal comprising K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial member) concluded that the matter was returned to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction for thorough examination of the evidence presented by the assessee concerning the Rs. 5 lakhs gifted by each grandfather.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the trust cannot be barred from getting the benefit of income tax deduction because of not opted for it previously.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member viewed that taking the reasonable construction of the said provision, the assessee is well within the prescribed limitation period to apply for the final approval Under section 80G(5) of the Act.
The single member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad, imposed a penalty under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on loans taken from partnership firms, which were deemed to violate Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The tribunal comprising Suchithra Kamble observed that the assessee, who was both a gynecologist and a partner in M/s. Kalpana Hospital conducted this transaction in a personal capacity but portrayed it as a loan taken from the partnership firm. Hence, the decision relied upon by the assessee and Circular No. 387 dated 06-07-1984 issued by the CBDT are not applicable in the present case. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
In a significant ruling the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the capital gain account scheme towards cost of improvement of residential property acquired was eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Challaya Nagendra Prasad ( Judicial member ) and Pradip Kumar Kediya ( Accountant member ) observed that the assessee that the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs allocated and retained in the Capital Gain Account Scheme for the improvement of the acquired residential property qualifies for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This cost of improvement can, at most, be considered as deductible at the time of the eventual sale of the property. Therefore, the directive issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Pr.CIT ) regarding this matter remains unchallengeable.
In a recent decision the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the mere making of an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particular, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S.Rifafur Rahman ( Accountant member) and Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member) found no justification in the penalty levied by the lower authorities considering the factual aspect of the present case Therefore, the bench further deemed it fit to direct the A.O. to delete the impugned penalty levied. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In a major ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed concessional rate of tax under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-appearance resulting in the failure to file Form 10IC.
The ITAT concluded that the assessee’s assertion regarding the filing of Form 10IC requires factual verification, the bench returning the appeal to the CIT (A) to examine the assessee’s claim based on any evidence that may be submitted and to allow the claim in accordance with the law.
In a significant ruling the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that non reply to Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice cannot necessarily lead to disallowance of petty expenses
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Saktijit Dey ( Vice President ) and Dr. B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member ) observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assuming that the non-response to Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, notices automatically warrants the disallowance of petty expenses ranging from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. In the absence of any other evidence indicating the non-incurrence of these expenses, the mere lack of response to notices cannot justify their disallowance.
The two member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi, observed that no Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) deduction under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when consultancy charges excluding service tax does not exceed Rs. 30.000.
Hence, as per the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with CBDT circular, the tribunal comprising Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial member ) M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) held that the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. Hence, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be made. Accordingly In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed
The two member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Mumbai, allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) filed along with Form 10CCB.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Prashanth Maharishi ( Accountant member ) and Sandeep Sing Karhail ( Judicial member ) observed that the fiscal year under review marks the 8th year of claiming the deduction under section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Rudrapur unit. Additionally, the assessee has provided a copy of Form No. 10CCB dated 29/11/2015, supporting their claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that decision of Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT (A) ] without considering merits of case was violative of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rahul Choudari ( Judicial member ) and Prashant Maharishi ( Accountant member ) observed that the order of the CIT-A does not align with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly given that a specific ground concerning the addition of Rs. 14,098,500 was raised in the appeal. In the interest of natural justice, the appeal of the assessee was reinstated to the CIT-A with the directive that once the window for submission of detailed information was available, the assessee must comply within the prescribed time frame.
The Chennai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), rejected the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to oversight and typographical error, as the satisfaction note was not provided.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manoj Kumar Agarwal ( Accountant member ) and V. Durga Rao ( Judicial member ) observed that the remand report from the Assessing Officer refuted the objections raised by the assessee concerning the satisfaction note’s receipt and the typographical error in the order.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently ruled in favour of businesses with a gross turnover not exceeding Rs. 250 Crores, allowing them to avail a concessional tax rate of 25%.
The coram of Manomohandas ( Judicial member) and Manjunatha G. ( Accountant member) concluded that after excluding these three specific items, the gross turnover or gross receipts of the assessee, inclduing other income, did not surpass Rs. 250 Crores. Therefore, the bench determined that the assessee has accurately calculated their tax liability by applying the 25% concessional rate of tax.
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that no exclusion of comparable if data available on records can be Reasonably Extrapolated
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S. Rifafur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) observed that the company was deemed functionally comparable in both preceding and subsequent assessment years; there appears to be no justifiable reason to reject it based on functional disparities in the current assessment year. Therefore, the said company was directed to be included in the list of comparable.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that receipts from sale of online videos to Indian clients is not taxable as royalty under India – USA DTAA.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, (Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that subscription revenue received by the assessee is not taxable as ‘Royalty’ in the hands of the assessee under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) dismissed the ex-parte order on grounds of failure to comply with the CIT(A)’s intimations, despite being given adequate opportunity.
Tribunal consisting , Manish Borad ( Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sharma ( Judicial member) observed that the appellant claimed that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without affording proper reasons or opportunities to the assessee.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ),held that deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act could not be allowed without filing return of income.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and George George K, Vice President held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that income from providing credit facilities to nominal members of cooperative society are eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Income Tax Act,1961.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Chandra Poojari, ( Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that income from providing credit facilities to nominal members of cooperative society are eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Income Tax Act,1961.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), observed that the delay in filing appeal before the lower authorities happened due to the mistake of assessee counsel. Therefore the bench directed re-adjudication.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, (Accountant member ) and George George K, Vice President directed readjudication in respect of delay in filing appeal before the lower authorities happened due to the mistake of assessee counsel.
Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), ruled that in a cases where a declaration under Section 194C(6) and a PAN are received from payees who possess a vehicle even though they are not registered owners, the legal owner is exempt from TDS under Section 194C.
Therefore the two member bench of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, ( Judicial Member ) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, (Accountant Member) who observed that Anyone in possession of the goods carriage, other than the registered owner, is considered the owner for the purposes of section 44AE. Since the assessee transporter’s taxes are primarily governed by section 44AE, this becomes significant when defining the term “owns” in section 194C(6).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ),Kolkata, has clarified that the credit of foreign tax cannot be denied solely for not filing Form 67 within due date of the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) under Section 139 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench, comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), noted that foreign tax to the tune of Rs. 17,72,470 was indeed deducted in the UK under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the UK, as per Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), directed radjudication on accounts of addition made under excess receipts from contracts works. The bench during the adjudication observed that the Revenue authorities have failed to examine the details of the work contracts awarded and the payment made by the Government which are relatable to various stages of work contract.
Therefore, the two member bench of Laliet Kumar, ( Judicial Member ) and R.K. Panda, ( Vice President ) directed re-adjudication on accounts addition made under Excess Receipts from Contract Works.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that penalties shall be calculated based on additions made to the income disclosed in the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) filed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rajesh Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) observed that the penalty has to be computed on the basis of the addition made to the income of the assessee disclosed in the ITR filed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty could be either equivalent to the taxes sought to be evaded by the assessee or maximum to the extent 300 times.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed readjucation on the concerned grounds due to the lower authority’s failure to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officers (DVO) for assessing the fair market value of the land property.
The bench of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member ) and Manish Borad ( Accountant member ) observed that the lower authorities ought to have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuing the fair market value of the land property. Consequently, the particular ground was directed for readjudication and the appeal was partly allowed.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not be available for expenses incurred for giving mementos to presidents and secretaries of Milk Producers Association
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, (Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not be available for expenses incurred for giving mementos to presidents and secretaries of Milk Producers Association.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that Successor companies could claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the recognition of Industrial Park Scheme, 2006.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Manjunatha. G ( Accountant member ) and Manomohan Das ( Judicial Member )observed that Successor companies could claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the recognition of Industrial Park Scheme, 2006. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that no addition should be made on account of sale of gold when it is reflected under the head sale in regular books.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Yogesh Kumar US, ( Judicial Member ) held that no addition should be made on account of sale of gold when it is reflected under the head sale in regular books.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that receipts from sale/distribution of software to Indian Associate Enterprise ( AE ) are not taxable under the Article 12(3) of India-Singapore DTAA,.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, ( Judicial Member ) hold that the subject matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT Therefore receipts from sale/distribution of software to Indian Associate Enterprise ( AE ) are not taxable under the Article 12(3) of India-Singapore DTAA,.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that stamp value on date of agreement on sale of property to be considered for applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Two-Member Bench of C.N Prasad, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member observed that “In view of the foregoing discussion, the provisions of s. 56(2)(vii)(b) do not apply to the facts of the instant case as it is covered by the first and second provisos inasmuch as the assessee entered into an agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the purchase of the immovable property in the year 2010 but the actual registration took place in 2013 and , further , the assessee paid a part of the consideration by cheque in the year 2010 before the date of the agreement. In such circumstances, we hold that, it is the stamp value on the date of agreement in the year 2010, has to be considered.”
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition made on account of salary in cash without having any documents
The tribunal during the adjudication observed that Salary of Rs.1,00 ,000/- has been regularly paid from every month by cheque. Since 01.10 .2016 an amount of Rs.1 ,00,000/- each has been paid and reflected in the books. Thereafter, there was no salary payment owing to termination of the employee. Thus entry made on the date of 01.11.2015 was notional and no salary has been paid in cash as the employee has been terminated Therefore the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Yogesh Kumar US, ( Judicial Member ) deleted the addition made on account of salary in cash without having any documents . Mayank Patawari, counsel appeared for assessee and Sapna Bhatia, counsel appeared for revenue.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that stubbed diamond jewelry found during the search proceedings should not need to be declared in wealth tax return. Hence the bench deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer.
Therefore the two-member bench Of N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar Us, (Judicial Member) observed that “diamond jewellery is always studded with gold and it is not a case of revenue that separate diamonds were found during the search operation. Merely because the jewellery is studded with the diamond of 47.18 carat in the instant case, the same cannot be added in the hands of the assessee when such jewellery formed part of the gross weight of the jewellery found from the premises of the assessee.”
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has clarified that delivery costs and warranty expenses should not be categorized as advertising, marketing, and promotion ( AMP ) expenditures.
The tribunal of George George K. ( Vice President ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) held that these costs should not be considered as part of AMP expenditure, concluding that the CIT (TP) was not justified in revising the order under Section 263 on this specific issue.
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that no exclusion of comparable if data available on records can be Reasonably Extrapolated
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S. Rifafur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) observed that the company was deemed functionally comparable in both preceding and subsequent assessment years; there appears to be no justifiable reason to reject it based on functional disparities in the current assessment year. Therefore, the said company was directed to be included in the list of comparable.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that income from providing credit facilities to nominal members of cooperative society are eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Income Tax Act,1961.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Chandra Poojari, ( Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that income from providing credit facilities to nominal members of cooperative society are eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Delhi bench directed to allow exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only after verifying the status of STT payment.
After Reviewing decision assessee own case for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2013-14 the two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Accountant member ) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya,( Accountant Member ) directed to allow exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only after verifying the status of STT payment. Tarandeep Singh, counsel appeared for assessee and Sanjay Gupta appeared for the revenue.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to allow exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that non-filing audit report along with income tax returns ( ITR ) is procedural omission.
The Coram comprising Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant Member ) observed that “Non filing of Audit Report along with return of income is a procedural omission and cannot be an impediment in law in claiming the exemption, we allow this appeal condoning the delay in filing the Audit Report in Form No. 10B. However, we also upon condoning the delay, restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to pass order in regard to the exemption claimed by the assessee strictly in accordance with law.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench recently upheld the addition made on account of commission income earned from the accommodation entries.
After reviewing the facts and circumstances the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, (Accountant member) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, (Judicial Member) upheld that the addition was made on account of commission income earned from the accommodation entries. Amol Sinha, counsel appeared for assessee and P.N Barnwal, counsel appeared for revenue.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that cash deposits in bank account from sale proceeds received in cash on due explanation, is not unexplained credit.
A Single Member Bench of M Balaganesh observed that “The assessee in the return filed on 22.05.2018 in response to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had declared income of Rs. 5,27,050/- which is nothing but the salary income. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee did not have any other source of income except salary which is only Rs. 5.27 lakhs. While this is so how the assessee could have made reinvestment in new property for Rs. 52,63,500/- would become point to ponder. Considering this fact itself, I hold that the explanation given by the assessee that he had received Rs. 29 lakhs in cash on sale of property is to be believed and assessee faithfully had deposited the said sum in his bank account within short span of time.”
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that cash deposit on demonetization not to be taxed as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on explanation of source.
The Bench of Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) observed that “The evidences produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee has received fees from students related to the event as well as study tour including the buildthon event fund. The assessee has given the cash bills from bank from 01-04-2016 to 08-11-2016.”
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that marketing service rendered by the US entity in India is not taxable in India aa Fee for Technical Service (FTS). Therefore the bench deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, (Accountant member) and George George K, (Vice President) confirmed the order of tribunal in assessee own case for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Thus the bench observed that “the services received by the assessee company cannot be considered as ‘royalty’ or fees for included services and the assessee was not under obligation to deduct TDS on this payment and as a consequence, the demand raised by the AO Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act cannot survive and the same is deleted”.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
