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 Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the assessee was entitled to claim credit for Minimum Alternate Tax ( MAT ) under the Vivad se Vishwas ( VSV ) Scheme for the year under consideration.
The coram of Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant member ) concluded that the lower authorities have denied the claim of the assessee for the reason that the claim was not adequately substantiated. Therefore ITAT remitted the issue back to the assessing officer with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee based on the documentary evidence and allow the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as treating personal expenses as income precludes loan classification, and income cannot be taxed twice in the same assessment year.
The two member Bench of the tribunal comprising C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) and Dr.B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member ) observed that the Assessing Officer has treated the personal expenses incurred by M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd as income of the assessee, then the same amount cannot be treated as loan in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. It was added that the same income cannot be taxed in two hands in the same assessment year and CIT (A) has rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
In a major decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Mumbai ruled that the omission to sign the assessment order by the Assessing Officer cannot be remedied by relying on Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of Vijay Corporation versus ITO, the Co-ordinate Bench in a case where the assessment order served on the assessee was not signed by the assessing officer, however, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Gagan Goyal ( Accountant member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) held that requirement of signature of the assessing officer was a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessment cannot be cured by relying on the provisions of Section 2928 of the Income Tax Act and holding the order invalid.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted addition under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act and held that discrepancies in maintaining KYC Documentation does not constitute incriminating material.
The bench of Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) and B.R. Baskaran ( Accountant Member ) observed that “For discrepancies in maintaining KYC documentation, account opening form, and violation of society byelaws, action can be taken against the assessee under the relevant statute or by the concerned authority, such as RBI, however, the same cannot lead to an addition in the hands of the assessee under the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered view that the material/documents found during the course of the search are not of such a nature which incriminates or militates against the assessee.”
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), citing no evidence of cash payments for demand drafts to 34 parties.
The Tribunal consisting, Saktijih Dey ( Vice President ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member) observed that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the assessee has purchased the demand drafts by paying cash to 34 parties. The AO has also not brought any evidence to demolish the affirmations made in the affidavits of the persons who have given advances. It appeared that the AO has made the additions on suspicion, conjecture and surmises without any evidence and the CIT (A) has deleted the impugned additions on proper appreciation of facts. Thus, the ITAT does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT (A).
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gain deduction should not be denied even if new property purchased in the name of spouse.
the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Saktijit Dey, ( Vice President ) relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal observed that a new house purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) to annul an addition made, citing a discrepancy between Form 26AS and the Profit & Loss Account, attributable to the declaration of service tax amounts.
The tribunal, comprising Amjit Shukla (Judicial member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant member), examined the records and noted that the primary contention revolved around the disparity between the amounts declared in the Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS. The significant difference, amounting to ₹.2,82,98,438/-, was attributed to service tax. Additionally, it was highlighted that the assessee also recorded discrepancies related to income offered in the previous year’s returns and certain income relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, which were reflected in the gross income declared in Form 26AS. Upon reviewing the detailed reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee before the CIT (A), the ITAT found no grounds to overturn the findings of the CIT (A). Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that share capital received from directors and shareholders of the company was duly discharged with evidence . Therefore the bench deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Narendra Kumar Billaiya, (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) observed that share capital received from directors and shareholders of the company was duly discharged with evidence . Thus the bench deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee Bawa Float Glass Ltd held that absence of Document identification Number ( DIN ) while granting statutory approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961would tantamount to no approval in the eyes of law and the approval under Section 153D Income Tax Act, 1961 is rendered non-est.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and George George K, ( Vice President ) set aside the assessment order passed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act and canceled in view of the legal infirmity of absence of DIN on the body of statutory approval granted under Section 153D of the Act by the competent authority i.e. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, stating that property sale consideration should not be grounds for inaccurate income particulars.
Thus, the single member bench of Pradip Kumar Kediya ( Accountant member ) found force in the plea of the assessee that the action of the AO while imposing the penalty does not meet the requirement of law. Hence, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was quashed In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while granting relief to Sony India the bench held that liability does not arise since failure to demand notice with respect to interest component of Fringe Benefit Tax ( FBT ).
Therefore the two-member bench of G.S. Pannu, ( Vice President ) and Saktijit Dey, ( Vice President ) observed that there cannot be a levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act for alleged non-payment of FBT liability. Furthermore, the records reveal that once the assessee came to know the fact that the demand relating to FBT liability was appearing in the portal of the Income Tax Department, it had opened a communication channel with the Assessing Officer continuously seeking information regarding service of intimation and demand notice creating such liability.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has denied eligibility for charitable purposes under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to services related to trade or business.
The Coram of Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) noted that nothing has been spent by the assessee, which could be considered in the nature of charity and therefore, the benefit under the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, was not available to the assessee. ITAT did not find any merit in the argument of the counsel for the assessee to support various grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds of assessee are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are dismissed, in the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
The Bangalore division of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) provided Toyota Financial with relief by instructing a reevaluation of the tax implications related to the interest income derived from Non-Performing Assets ( NPAs ).
The tribunal, comprising George George K (Vice President) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member), remanded the matter to the CIT (Appeals) after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Additionally, the assessee was instructed to adhere to the hearing notice and refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments to expedite the case’s resolution
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled to overturn the addition made under section 69A under Income Tax Act, as both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] overlooked crucial evidence pertaining to cash deposits.
A single-member bench, presided by Suchithra Kemble, emphasized that the taxpayer had provided details regarding the land sale and associated consideration, as well as evidence of withdrawals from the father’s account. Regrettably, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) had disregarded this crucial evidence. Consequently, the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed.
After the taxpayer presented Income Tax Returns ( ITRs ) and bank statements to demonstrate the authenticity of the unsecured loan, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) removed the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member bench, comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member), upheld the findings of the CIT (A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The ITAT condemned the Revenue’s decision to treat the interest on the alleged loans as genuine while deeming the loans themselves as bogus, ultimately dismissing the revenue’s appeal.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the defective penalty notice issued by the assessing officer.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Challa Nagendra Prasad, (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant Member) held that the penalty notice issued on 31/03/2015 is defective and, accordingly, entire penalty proceedings gets vitiated. Hence, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law. Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Rajkumar counsel appeared for the assessee and Jeetendra Kumar Kale counsel appeared for revenue
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has issued an order for re-adjudication regarding the deduction for agricultural loans provided to members under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench directed the AO to investigate whether the interest income was earned from investments in compliance with the relevant Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules and Act. If the income was found to be a result of compulsory compliance, it would be entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. With these instructions, grounds 5 to 8 were remanded to the files of the AO.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while directing to allow exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the auditor failed to file the audit report along with the return of income.
It was observed by the tribunal that In the present case also, the assessee obtained the Audit Report dated 31.10.2018 from the Auditor but could not file the same on Income Tax Portal. Thus, the audit report was prepared well within the time. Thus, the CIT(A) should have taken cognisance of the same and the Assessing Officer should have also taken into account Audit Report for allowing the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act to the assessee. Therefore the single member bench Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) noted that the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) does not fall under the status of the Central Government for invoking Rule 3 and Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
However, the tribunal, comprising M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member), viewed that “view that though Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in holding that assessee falls in status of Central Government for the purpose of Section 17(2) of the Act, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) still deserves to be upheld as Ld. AO has fallen in error by straightaway invoking Rule 3 for computing value of the perquisite and treat assessee in default in deducting tax at source on said value, without first recording a finding as to whether there is ‘concession’ and the case is covered by Section 17 (2) (ii) of the Act.”
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the application filed for condoning the delay of 451 days regarding the appeal for the penalty proceedings.
Therefore the two-member bench of C V Bhadang, (Vice President) and B R Baskaran, (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the application for condoning the delay.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently ruled on a case where deduction claims under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were disallowed due to the failure to submit the audit report in Form 10CCB before Income Tax Return ( ITR ) filing.
After examining the submissions and the facts of the case, the bench, consisting of Narendra Kumar Billaya (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S (Judicial member), noted that the audit report in Form No. 10CCB was filed after the due date for ITR filing. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with the provisions of filing the Audit Report under Section 80IC within the stipulated time was crucial for claiming the deduction under this section. Additionally, the tribunal found no merit in the argument that the assessee had been claiming deductions under Section 80IC since the previous assessment year. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the appeal filed by the assessee lacked merit and subsequently dismissed it.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer towards the interest expenses held that interest paid on loans borrowed for real estate and finance business is allowable as deduction
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, (Judicial Member) Deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer and held that interest paid on loans borrowed for real estate and finance business is allowable as deduction.
In a major ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that surpassing the threshold of gross receipts for charitable trusts as outlined in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act does not constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of registration.
The bench of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) and M. Bal Ganesh (Accountant member) held that the activities carried out by the assessee would be charitable activity under section 2(15) of the Act and in any case, the registration cannot be cancelled under Section 12AA (3) of the Income Tax Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. Even if the gross receipts of the assessee exceeds the threshold limit prescribed in the proviso under Section 2(15) of the Act, still there is no need for cancellation of the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Pune bench while observing the rejection of the application of exemption claimed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of failure to produce the documentary evidence directed readjudication.
Accordingly the ITAT bench of Sarathi Chaudhury, ( Judicial Member ) & G.D. Padmahshali, ( Accountant Member ) after reviewing the submissions of both parties remand the matter back to his file to CIT(E) and directed to examining and verifying all documentary evidence furnished by the applicant-assessee.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-filing of draft assessment order specified under Section 144(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, (Accountant Member) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) quashed assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act due to non-filing of draft assessment order specified under Section 144(1) of the Income Tax Act. Amit Goel, CA, Pranav Yadav, Advocate, Nippun Mittal, CA & Ms. Anjali Jain, Advocates appeared for assessee and Vizay B. Vasanta, Sanjay Kumar appeared for revenue.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be made, when authenticity/genuineness of share application money received from various investors are fully explained.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar,( Accountant Member ) and Yogesh Kumar US, ( Judicial Member ) deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and confirmed that Authenticity/Genuineness Share Application Money received from various investors are fully explained by the assessee.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that no disallowance should be made towards the business loss incurred on erection and testing services of Hindustan Thermal.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of M Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and C. N. Prasad, (Judicial Member) no disallowance should be made towards the business loss incurred on erection and testing services of Hindustan Thermal. Satyen Sethi,counsel appeared for assessee and Sandip Kumar Mishra counsel appeared for revenue.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of incorrect facts recorded by the assessing officer.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar ( Accountant Member ) and Saktijit Dey, ( Vice President ) quashed the reassessment by holding that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act in the instant case is based on incorrect facts recorded thereon.
In a recent decision, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) determined that under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, interest income from investments in cooperative society banks is eligible for deduction, provided such investments are obligatory under the Karnataka State Societies Act, 1959.
The ITAT emphasized that if the investments were made out of compulsion under the Act and relevant Rules, they would be part of the petitioner’s business activity, thus qualifying for the benefits of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeals filed by the petitioner were allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently made a significant decision, overturning an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT found no errors or infirmities prejudicial to the revenue’s interest in the assessment order, thereby setting aside the PCIT’s decision.
The bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant member), did not identify any error or infirmity in the assessment order that could render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the PCIT’s order and reinstated that of the Assessing Officer dated 22nd December 2016.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled in favor of the taxpayer, overturning the addition made under section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal found that the cash deposit, received as a gift from the taxpayer’s mother during the demonetization period, was adequately accounted for.
A single-member bench of Chandra Poojari (Accountant member), concluded that the addition made by the assessing officer could not be upheld as the assessee clearly provided the explanation of the cash deposit. The ITAT determined that the Rs. 25,00,000/- deposit into the taxpayer’s bank account had been properly explained, leading to the deletion of the contested addition. As a result, the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while dismissing the revenue appeal held that the comparable chosen for ITES and IT segment are within the tolerance limit provided in proviso to section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of S Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) observed that comparable chosen for ITES and IT segment are within the tolerance limit provided in proviso to section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. No one appeared for assessee during the proceedings and Shilpa N.C appeared for revenue.
In a major ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upon submission of requisite documents by the taxpayer.
Thus, the two-member bench of the ITAT, including Anubav Sharma ( Judicial member ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) removed the addition related to the unsecured loan received by M/s. Powmex Sales Pvt. Ltd under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) highlighted that the gratuity paid to an employee is classified as salary, hence deemed an allowable expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Girish Agarwal (Accountant Member), expressed bewilderment at the prolonged delay in processing the assessee’s application for approval. Despite the delay, the assessee had been consistently making payments to LIC for the group gratuity scheme and claiming deductions accordingly.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating it as null and void from the beginning, citing the assessment being made in the name of a non-existent entity.
The tribunal, comprising Sanjoy Sharma ( Judicial Member ) and Rajesh Kumar ( Accountant Member ) upholding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki observed that the framing of assessment in the name of non-existing entity is invalid and void ab-initio and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the ITAT nullified the assessment order, allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has delivered a significant directive to the Assessing Officer (AO), compelling the deletion of additions related to capitation fees. The tribunal emphasized that information solely obtained from pen drives or laptops of employees cannot be deemed as credible evidence for tax assessments.
The tribunal observed that “the information found in the pen drive/laptop of employees cannot be considered as credible evidences, unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Accordingly, no credence could be given to the abstract entries made in the pen drive/laptop. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO could not have made additions on the basis of those information.”
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee held that application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act filed within the prescribed time limit.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Satbeer Singh Godara, ( Judicial Member ) and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote,( Accountant Member ) held that the Assessee Trust had applied for registration within the time allowed under the Act. Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In a significant decision, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] regarding the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal bench, comprising Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member), noted that the appellant had received an occupation certificate for the Rustomjee Oriana project, where the purchased flat (Flat No. B-902) was located on 07/11/2015. The bench also observed that the possession of the flat was granted to the appellant on 15/03/2016. Based on these facts, the tribunal bench concluded that the appellant satisfied the conditions outlined in Section 54 and should be allowed the deduction.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest earned on deposits kept for the purpose of business could not be taxed under income from other sources.
Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents the two-member bench Of M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) and C. N. Prasad, ( Judicial Member ) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. M. P. Rastogi, counsel appeared for the revenue and Kanv Bali, counsel appeared for revenue.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while directing readjudication observed that no interest expenditure should be disallowed which has not been claimed during the deposit of tax in return.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) set aside the first appellate order and remit the matter back to the AO for determining the issue afresh on the basis of relevant facts that may be placed by the assessee before the AO.
The two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench directs assessing officers to re-compute book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by giving the opportunity of being heard to assessee.
After Reviewing the facts the two-member bench Of Yogesh Kumar U.S (Accountant member) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya,(Accountant Member) directed the AO to re-compute the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act by giving reasons for making adjustment and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) refused to stay recovery against the Indian National Congress ( INC ) and ruled that ( ITR ) filing by due date under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for political party to claim exemption under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Two-Member Bench comprising observed that “On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, and having regard to the legal position and the material on record, it is reasonable to conclude that the income tax authorities have not made any error in denying the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act due to violation of clause (d) of the first Proviso as well as third Proviso to Section 13A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, in our view, the Applicant has been unable to make out a strong prima facie case against the interpretation of Section 13A of the Income Tax Act as adopted by the Revenue to deny the exemption, so far it is relevant for the purposes of examining the merits of the present Application.”
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) emphasized the principle of consistency in revenue recognition methodologies across fiscal years unless modified in the initial year.
Consequently, the two-member bench, comprising Madmitha Roy ( Judicial member ) and Waseem Ahemed ( Accountant member ), concluded that there was no error in the Assessing Officer’s order prejudicial to revenue interests. They ruled that the PCIT’s order was unsustainable, and consequently, partially allowed the grounds of appeal presented by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) removed the addition under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after justifying unexplained expenditure as business promotion expenses with relevant bank statements.
The bench observed that the CIT(A) did not have the authority to introduce a new source of income and failed to provide proper notice to the assessee regarding the proposed change. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were considered to be on different grounds and were deleted. As a result, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The decision was made by Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) of the ITAT.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that interest paid on account of expenses on repair and maintenance of aircrafts are not allowable expenditure.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) held that interest paid on account of expenses on repair and maintenance of aircrafts are not allowable expenditure.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted 30% disallowance made on the expenditure incurred on mobile distribution business due to failure to point out the deficiency in books of accounts.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Shamim Yahya, ( Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma, ( Judicial Member ) Deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer. Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directed readjudication with respect to date of acquisition of property to determine the stamp duty value of immovable property sold by the assessee Rajkumar Anandchand Jain.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Rahul Chaudhary,(Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi, (Accountant Member) directed readjudication with respect to date of acquisition of property to determine the stamp duty value of immovable property sold by the assessee Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned the revision order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ), which had disallowed Income Tax Deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was also lacked independent view of the PCIT.
The ITAT bench, comprising Dr. S. Seetha Lakshmi ( Judicial Member ) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai ( Accountant Member ), observed that the revisionary proceeding under Section 263 was solely based on an audit objection, lacking independent judgment from the PCIT. Moreover, considering that the claim had been accepted upon reopening the case after the survey, the tribunal quashed the PCIT’s order.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that no addition should be made when commissions earned from consignment sale of food grains are reflected in profit and loss account.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that no appeal should be filed when moratoriums under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ( IBC )are issued by the National Company Law Tribunal for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP ) against Corporate Debtors.
Therefore since proceedings under I&B code have already been initiated/decided and moratorium has been declared by prohibiting all the proceedings against the corporate debtors including execution of any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority, present appeals in the present format are not maintainable After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Kuldip Singh, ( Judicial Member ) and Padmavathy S, ( Accountant Member ) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Teena Jain Advocates appeared for assessee and P.D. Chougule appeared for revenue.
The bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Delhi, has observed that the deduction claim under Section 80IA under Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be permitted on gross basis without offsetting the losses from the other industrial undertakings.
The bench of C.N.Prasad (Judicial member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant member) observed that the whether the loss making unit was also eligible for deduction under section 80- IA of the Income Tax Act and if so the claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act has to be computed for both eligible units. It was found that the CIT (A) has not adjudicated on the addition made by the AO in respect of the interest income which was not derived from the business of the eligible undertaking.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that the Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ) credit should not be denied when the income from sale of agriculture property was not reflected in Income Tax Return ( ITR ).
Therefore the single member bench Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) observed that Tax Deduction at Source( TDS ) credit should not be denied when the income from sale of agriculture property was not reflected in Income Tax Return ( ITR ).
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) made a ruling regarding the treatment of various expenses, including share-based compensation ( SBC ), depreciation, and amortization, as operating expenses.
The Tribunal Bench, consisting of George George K ( Vice President ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ), stated that these expenses should not be considered as incurred for brand development, as they are post-sales activities and form part of sales expenditure. It was also clarified that there was no lack of inquiry in this regard. After considering all facts, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench concluded that delivery costs and warranty expenses should not be classified as part of AMP expenditure.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Bangalore has ruled that submission of Income Tax Form No. 10BA is mandatory for claiming deductions under Section 80GG of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee failed to comply with this requirement. As a result, the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the deduction once the form is filed.
The bench, consisting of George George K (Vice President) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), emphasized the necessity of filing Form No. 10BA to claim the deduction under Section 80GG. Consequently, the issue was referred back to the AO to grant the deduction after considering Form No. 10BA in conjunction with Rule 11B of the Income Tax Act Rules, 1963. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
