This annual round-up analytically summarizes all the Income Tax related Orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Benches of India reported at Taxscan.in during 2024.
The Bangalore Bench of 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.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted additions made towards the loss incurred on the derivative transactions carried through the proper banking channel.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of M. Balaganesh, ( Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma, ( Judicial Member ) deleted additions made towards the loss incurred on the derivative transactions carried through the proper banking channel.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed readjudication with respect to deferred revenue expenditure incurred on account of leased aircraft engine improvement.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma, ( Judicial Member ) restored the file to AO after considering the decision of coordinate Bench in the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13. Thus directed readjudication with respect to deferred revenue expenditure incurred on account of leased aircraft engine improvement.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of profit derived as per the agreement with Delhi International Airport Limited ( DIAL ).
Therefore the two-member bench Of M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) and Yogesh Kumar U.S. ( Judicial Member ) allowed deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of profit derived as per the agreement with Delhi International Airport Limited ( DIAL ).
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) approved the claim for the company’s ongoing office maintenance expenses under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the authorities had failed to realise.
The tribunal of Sanjoy Sharma ( Judicial member ) and Rajesh Kumar ( Accountant member ) observe that both AO and CIT(A) have failed to appreciate and understand the fact that the assessee was a company and has to incur certain expenses to keep its office running. The assessee has rightly claimed the loss of Rs. 5, 66, 441/- which has to set off against the house property income.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that no disallowance should be made under Section 40A(2) of Income Tax Act in respect of payments of supervision and risk management charges to relative concerns.
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 ) held that no disallowance should be made under Section 40A(2) of Income Tax Act in respect of payments of supervision and risk management charges to relative concerns.
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition made on the account of non -inclusion of Goods and Service Tax ( GST )on sales in profit and loss account .
Therefore the two member bench of Vikas Awasthy,( Judicial Member ) and Shri Gagan Goyal, ( Accountant Member ) observed that the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the CPC, of making addition on account of non-inclusion of the GST on sales in profit and loss account.
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed to examine the allowability of the claim for the deduction of service tax made during the assessment proceedings.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Inturi Rama Rao, ( Accountant Member ) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, ( Judicial Member ) directed to examine the allowability of the claim for the deduction of service tax made during the assessment proceedings.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) amount advanced for business transactions between shareholding entities are not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the bench deleted additions made by the assessing officer.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of CIT Vs Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd and observed that amount advanced for business transaction between shareholding entities are not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Satish Aggrawal, counsel appeared for assessee and Kanv Bali, counsel appeared for revenue.
The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while deleting the addition made by the assessing officer the two member bench held that the revenue authority failed
Therefore the bench determined that the independent verification of the transactions was limited by the Assessing Officer to the extent of investigation report but the same has not doubted purchase of the shares off-market and, therefore, the same cannot be made bogus sale of shares at the available period when the assessee sold the shares was not involving the assessee to manipulate the price of the scrip then the entire case of the Revenue fails. However, while processing the return of income, the entire amount of Rs.8,10,00,000/- was adjusted against the income tax liability, thereby, creating liability of FBT demand of Rs.73,45,724/- along with interest charged of Rs.18,38,871/- under section 115WJ of the Income Tax Act.Therefore the two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble, ( Judicial Member ) and Waseem Ahmed, ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In a significant decision, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that product development expenses should be classified as revenue expenditure and are eligible for deduction.
The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) agreed with the AO that there was no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act, as explicitly stated in sections 35AB and 35ABB of the Income Tax Act. Considering the nature of the expenses incurred by the company for product development, the tribunal concluded that the entire expenditure was revenue in nature and thus eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled in favor of the assessee by removing the addition related to transport services or medical expenses reimbursement provided to non-employees, thereby exempting them from Fringe Benefit Tax ( FBT ) liability.
Considering CBDT Circular No. 8/2005 dated 29.08.2005 and judgments of Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Wipro Ltd. regarding medical expenses, and the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune in the case of Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. concerning loans given to employees, the tribunal concluded that no further addition other than the amount of Rs. 113,86,653/- was liable for computation regarding FBT liability.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed deduction of Employees Stock Option Plan ( ESOP ) claimed within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore the two-member bench of M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) and Yogesh Kumar U.S, ( Judicial Member ) held that claim of deduction of ESOP expenditure was made by the assessee in the revised return filed on 31/03/2019 which is well within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) for the search assessment was mere mechanical manner without due application of mind. Therefore the bench nullified the search proceedings.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Inturi M. Balaganeshr (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar Us, (Judicial Member) concluded that approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act has been granted by the JCIT in the instant case before is a mechanical manner without due application of mind, thereby making the approval proceedings by a high ranking authority, an empty ritual. Thus the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assess.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the interconnect usage payments received by a foreign company from an Indian telecom operator should not be classified as ‘Royalty’.
The two-member bench, consisting of Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) and George George K ( Vice President ), determined that the amount received by the assessee company from the Indian telecom operator for interconnect usage did not meet the criteria for taxation as “royalty”. Accordingly, the ruling was made in favor of the assessee, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) eliminated the additional assessment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, following the declaration of 719 grams of jewellery found in the locker as Stri Dhan, received from the assessee’s parents.
The tribunal, comprising Yogesh Kumar ( U.S ) and N.K.Billaya ( Accountant member ) stated that “Considering family background of the assessee possession of 719.91 grams gold jewellery cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts in totality we do not find any merit in the impugned addition we accordingly direct the AO to delete the same.” In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed depreciation claims on the aircraft put to use for a period less than 180 days.
After reviewing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma, ( Judicial Member ) allowed depreciation claims on aircraft put to use for a period less than 180 days.
The Central Government has appointed 40 new members to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) bench across the nation. The government has provided the list of names of the members appointed which includes judges, advocates, Chartered Accountants and IRS officers.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )
Established in January 1941, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) stands as a pivotal quasi-judicial institution, specializing in the adjudication of appeals under the Direct Taxes Acts. Originally comprising six Members forming three Benches in Delhi, Kolkata ( Calcutta ), and Mumbai ( Bombay ), its scope has progressively expanded. Presently, the ITAT operates 63 Benches spread across 27 different stations, ensuring comprehensive coverage in nearly all cities hosting a High Court.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has nullified the Reassessment Order, pointing out that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) relied blindly on the Investigation Wing report for reopening the assessment without due diligence
The two-member bench of the tribunal, comprising M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) and Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial member ), noted the unreasonableness of the reassessment proceedings. They observed a lack of application of mind by the AO during the recording of reasons, coupled with vague and unjustified justifications. Ultimately, the ITAT decision highlighted the importance of AO’s independent assessment and diligent consideration of tangible evidence before initiating reassessment proceedings, rather than mere reliance on reports without proper scrutiny.
In a recent decision, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted Piramal Enterprises relief by ruling that rental income from RP House should be treated as income from house property, not income from other sources, contrary to the CIT(A)’s decision.
The coordinated bench of the Tribunal, comprising S. Rifafur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member), accordingly following the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on the identical issue AO is directed to assess the rental income of let out portion of RP house as income from house property. This ground was decided in favour of the assessee
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the burden shifts on the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to prove that cause lacks bonafide when taxpayer shows reasonable cause for accepting cash loan.
A Two-Member Bench comprising V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member and Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member observed that “The assessee furnished copies of the confirmation letters from the lender, which were filed before the authorities below and find that assessee’s father-in-law as well as assessee’s wife, who have confirmed that the loan amount shall be treated as gift. The assessee’s mother passed away and produced death certificate. Moreover, the assessee has shown reasonable cause for receiving money towards purchase of machineries. Thus, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities below were reasonable and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act is untenable.”
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the interest and dividend derived by one cooperative society from investment with another one is eligible for deduction under Section 80p(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Judicial Member and GD Padmahshali, Accountant Member observed that “The interest and dividend earned by the appellant society from its investment held with co-operative banks namely RDCC, being a registered co-operative society under respective state laws, qualifies for deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently the views adopted by the tax authorities below are not in conformity with legal position and binding judicial precedents, hence deserves to be vacated. Resultantly, we set-aside the impugned order and reverse the denial of deduction.”
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Bangalore held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be limited to exempted income.
According to the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Biocon Ltd. Vs. DCIT wherein it was held that “when there is no exempt income, there could not be any disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. In other words, it means that disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act should be limited to the exempted income”. After reviewing the facts the ITAT bench of George George K., Vice President and Chandra Poojari,( Accountant Member ) sustained the addition to the tune of Rs.31,600/- only up to the exempt income earned by the assessee. K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija GA counsel appeared for the assessee and Subramanian S.counsel appeared for revenue.
The single member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Pune while observing the transfer of fixed deposits of deceased husbands during the demonetisation period for purchase of agricultural plots remands the matter to the file of Assessing Officer ( AO ) for verification.
After reviewing the facts the ITAT bench of Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, ( Judicial Member ) remand the matter to the file of AO for complete verification of the submissions made by the assessee with respect to the FD transferred from the account of assessee husband .
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Mumbai while deleting the addition made by the assessing officer the bench held that the source of cash deposit made in corporation bank is out of advance money received from the sale of property.
It is observed by the tribunal that the assessee had an opening cash balance of Rs. 5,08,370.34 as per the financial for the year ended 31.03.2005. further noticed that the credits in the Corporation Bank up to 05.07.2005 ( before assessee leaving India ) total to Rs. 4,02,250/-. Therefore, there is merit in the contention that he assesses that the source for the amount deposited until the date of his leaving India is from the cash in hand which is declared in the return of income for the previous AY.
Considering the facts and documentary evidence submitted by both parties the bench confirmed that the assessee has explained the source for the cash deposited during his stay in India which is fact is not disputed by the Revenue and that the affidavit of the father not being rejected by the Revenue. Therefore the Banglore bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Pune bench while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee held that territorial jurisdiction of the AO is determined on the basis of place where the assessee resides and/or carries on his business or profession.
After reviewing the facts the ITAT bench of C.V. Bhadang, (President) and B.R. Baskaran, (Accountant Member) held that the assessee was residing and carrying on her profession at Bangalore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO at Mumbai was invalid. Therefore The change of address in the records and/or migration of PAN are not strictly relevant in the matter where the jurisdiction is governed by the statutory provisions as contained in Section 120 read with Section 124 of the Income Tax Act and the notification issued by the Board.
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Bangalore directed readjudication with respect to disallowance made on expenses incurred under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After reviewing the facts the ITAT bench of George George K., Vice President and Chandra Poojari,(Accountant Member) partly allowed for statistical purposes. K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija GA counsel appeared for the assessee and Subramanian S.counsel appeared for revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench directed a readjudication with respect to the denial to grant Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ).
After analyzing the submissions of both parties, the bench comprising Aby T Varkey ( Judicial Member ) and S. Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) remitted this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the records submitted by the assessee on merit and as per law. Dhanesh Bafna, the counsel appearing for the assessee, and Vachashpati Tripathi, counsel appearing for the Department representatives, were present during the proceedings.
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Kolkata directed to allow expenditure towards the commission payment made to agents who relate to business expenses.
Accordingly the bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma, ( Judicial Member ) and Dr. Manish Borad,( Accountant Member ) directed the AO to allow the claim of assessee such expenditure towards commission payment made to the various parties.
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Mumbai directed readjudication with respect to parties who advance received against booking of flats.
Therefore the bench comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant Member ) restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining parties from whom advance was received against booking. Madhur Agarwal appeared for assessee and H.M. Bhatt appeared for revenue.
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Mumbai ruled that Income From housing finance for residential purposes for a period of less than 5 years should be eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore the interest income earned from loans extended or construction or purchase of house for a period of less than 5 years should also be included in the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial Member ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant Member ) allowed the above ground raised by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Delhi held that management service fees paid to non-resident Associate Enterprises are eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore the bench comprising Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial Member ) and M. Balaganesh, ( Accountant Member ) observed that the common administration costs incurred by the parent group would be recharged on all the subsidiaries spread across the globe. Hence it was held that the management service fees paid by the assessee would be squarely allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Mumbai while deleting the addition made by the assessing officer held that the Income Tax Department failed to controvert evidence with respect to sale against advance amount received from trade creditors.
It is observed that lower authorities have failed to controvert the relevant supporting evidences furnished by the assessee that they have made sales to the Vishal Gems & Jewel against the advance amount received by them from that concern and there was no unsecured loan obtained by the assessee from that concern. Therefore the bench comprising Rahul Chadhary, ( Judicial Member ) and Amarjit Singh,( Accountant Member ) deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Pune bench ruled that loan received through the state government does not attract section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising S.S. Godara (Judicial Member ) and G.D. Padmahshali, ( Accountant Member ) observed that assessment year A.Y.2016-17 held that loans received through a state government does not attract section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore bench directed to rectify the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the 80P deduction .
Therefore the bench further observed that AO while issuing show cause notice for rectification had not mentioned that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality by dealing with nonmembers. After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising George George K (Vice President) and Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) allowed rectification of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the 80P deduction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench ruled that no addition shall be made under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when income from project of redevelopment determined under profit and gains of business of profession ( PGBP ).
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Narender Kumar Choudhry ( Judicial Member ) and Ms Padmavathy S, ( Accountant Member ) determined that In assessee’s case, the assessee being a Builder and Developer of property has offered the income from project of redevelopment under the head of and gains from business or profession following Project Completion Method and therefore the addition made by the assessing officer is not sustainable
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi bench ruled that income from the hotel related services provided to Indian hotels is not royalty/Fee including service ( FIS ) under Article 12 of the India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements ( DTAA ).
The tribunal observed that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal and Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore the bench comparising Astha Chandra ( Judicial Member ) and Shamim Yahya, ( Accountant Member ) held that income from the hotel related services provided to Indian hotels are not covered royalty/Fee including service ( FIS ) under Article 12 of the India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements ( DTAA ). Therefore the bench dismisses the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Chandigarh Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that investment in construction of hospital buildings made out from the professional receipts are computed under head business income.
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) held that investment in construction of hospital buildings made out from the professional receipts are computed under head business income.
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while directing the readjudication observed that procedure of disposal of appeal with respect to investment in equities is not in accordance with mandate given under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice-President) and Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) set aside this issue to the file of CIT (Appeals) and observed that the procedure of disposal of appeal with respect to investment in equities is not in accordance with mandate given under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed to delete additions made in respect of capital gain by adopting the value of property as per DVO report.
The tribunal observed that the assessee as a prudent seller to get rid of the long time and continuous harassment due to interruption and obstacles of miscreants in peaceful use and enjoyment of the property, has made a distress sale of the property at Rs.30,00,000/ After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Sanjay Garg ( Judicial Member ) and Girish Agrawal, ( Accountant Member ) held that addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of capital gains by adopting the value of the property as per the DVO report is ordered to be deleted.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while quashing the revision order held that the method of revenue recognition and application of accounting standard are properly verified by the assessing officer in the assessment order
Therefore After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Madhumita Roy ( Judicial Member ) and Waseem Ahmed, ( Accountant Member ) observed that the method of revenue recognition and application of accounting standards are properly verified by the assessing officer in the assessment order. Therefore the bench quashed the revision order.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that no addition shall be made on account of share premium received in excess of Fair Market Value (FMV) under Section 56(20(viib0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Kul Bharat(Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) held that no addition was made on account of share premium received in excess of Fair Market Value (FMV) under Section 56(20(viib0 of the Income Tax Act.Therefore the bench reverse addition mae by the assessing officer.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no interest shall be levied on delayed realization of export proceeds from Associate Enterprises(AE)
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) held that imputing of interest on delayed payment of receivables from AEs is unwarranted.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that expenditure incurred on sheleed projects are revenue expenditure and deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer.
Considering this fact the tribunal observed that the preceding Assessment Years the Tribunal has been consistently holding that such expenditure is on revenue account and has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the two member tribunal bench of Vikas Awasthy, ( Judicial Member ) and Padmavathy.S, ( Accountant Member ) held that expenditure incurred on sheleed projects are revenue expenditure.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while deleting the addition made by the assessing officer held that source for cash deposit in savings bank account is made out of sale proceeds of flat.
After analyzing the submission of both parties the single bench of M. Balaganesh, ( Accountant Member ) held that source for cash deposit for Rs. 29 lakhs in the bank account is made out of sale proceeds received in cash is to be believe as there is no other source of income available to the assessee. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directs re-adjudication with respect to Long Term Capital Gain of sold property which was canceled by the civil court.
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising George George K, (Vice President) and Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member)directs re-adjudication with respect to Long Term Capital Gain of sold property which was canceled by the civil court.
The Chennai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directs readjudication due to the dispute with respect to the remittance of employees contribution towards the provident fund and Employee State Insurance ( ESI ).
After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) directed readjudication due to the dispute with respect to the remittance of employees contribution towards the provident fund and Employee State Insurance.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition as no addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act shall be made solely on the grounds of the expiration of the limitation period.
The two member bench comprising Narendar Kumar Choudhari ( Judicial member ) and M.S Pathmavathy ( Accountant member ) noticed in Assessee’s case that the assessee as part of the financial statements reflecting the outstanding liability it would mean that it is an acknowledge liability and that the assessee was intending to settle the liability in the future date.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that Section 2 (22) of Income Tax cannot be invoked against Non-Beneficiary Shareholders in company receiving Company Loans.
The Coram of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant member) concluded that since the assessee company was not a beneficial shareholder in M/s. Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd., the loan received was a commercial transaction. Thus, Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked. Consequently, the revenue’s grounds were dismissed
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has observed that the magnitude of profit is not decisive factor about genuineness of existence of an investee company.
It was reiterated that the legitimacy of the assessee’s investment could not be established based solely on the modest profit earned. Therefore, the Tribunal, led by Girish Agrwal ( Accountant member ) and Rajpal Yadav ( Vice President ), upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals), dismissing the appeal.
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Interconnect usage charges paid to foreign Telecom Operators Not Taxable in India under India-Sri Lanka Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA
The bench of Om Prakash Kanth ( Accountant member ) and Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member ) held that the payment made towards interconnect usage charges to foreign telecom operators does not accrue or arise in India and in the absence of any permanent establishment in India could not be brought to tax in India under Article 7 of DTAA. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) observed that loan advanced for repayment of business operation liabilities allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya ( Accountant member ) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) found, as per submissions of Departmental Representative, it was the case of the Revenue that various agreements, which are not produced at earlier stages need to be examined for arriving at a proper conclusion on assessee’s claim of business. Further, in the interest of justice, the issue arising for consideration needs to be restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) clarified the applicability of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) provisions on salary payments to doctors, determining that such deductions fall under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rather than Section 192. Considering the submissions, the two-member bench comprising Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) reaffirmed that TDS on salaries paid to doctors, across all categories, falls under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
