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 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under section 272(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ) filing was delayed due to paucity of funds, with interest duly paid.
The bench of Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial member ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) held that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 272A (2) (k) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for all the years under consideration are allowed, and the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has invalidated a reassessment order as the Assessing Officer’s sole reliance on DDIT report for the alleged 15 crore income escapement was deemed insufficient.
The bench of G.N Pannu ( Vice President ) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) held that the reassessment made in the section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is bad in law and the re-assessment order was quashed, Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee are allowed.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed reassessment as Assessing Officer ( AO ) failed to pass assessment Order within 4 weeks from rejection of taxpayers’ objection.
The bench of Manish Board (Accountant member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) observed that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer held to be bad in law and therefore, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reopened assessment are not sustainable. ITAT decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee holding that the assessment framed in this case was bad in law, therefore, other grounds/issues taken by both the parties on merits are rendered academic in nature.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited by deleting the addition of interest income. This action was taken due to the Assessing Officer ( AO )’s failure to properly appreciate the facts of the matter
Upon thorough examination of the facts, the bench of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and N. K. Billaiya (Accountant member) concurred with the view that the AO had not accurately understood the situation. Consequently, the tribunal declined to intervene, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed accordingly.
The Chennai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed to compute income earned from sale of property under Section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore, the bench concluded that the assessee has furnish the details, such as how long the asset was treated as long term capital gain and when the assessee has converted the property into stock-in-trade and accordingly up to conversion of the property, the Assessing Officer has to treat it as capital asset and after conversion of the property, it has to be treated as business assessee. Although, neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer properly computed the property of the assessee After analyzing the submission of both parties the bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) directed to compute income earned from sale of property under Section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) determined that a vehicle exclusively used by a business entity qualifies for depreciation claims.
It was noted by the two member bench of Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant Member ) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) noted that, “purchase of a car was made by the appellant company which is also reflected in the books of account of the appellant company and therefore it can be well said that the car is commercially used for the purpose of business of the company and the depreciation thereon cannot be denied; moreso, the interest on car loan and car insurance was allowed by the department.”
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Bench held that the payment made by Google India to the assessee does not fall under the category of royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS).
The tribunal bench of Accountant Member Laxmi Prasad Sahu and Vice President Geroge George K held that the payments made by Google Ireland Limited to the assessee cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee as royalty.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed a reassessment of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India’s ( ICSI ) income tax exemption claim.
The Tribunal Bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) has partially upheld the appellant’s appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for further examination, acknowledging the intricacies and nuances involved.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed a reassessment of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India’s ( ICSI ) income tax exemption claim.
The Tribunal Bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) has partially upheld the appellant’s appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for further examination, acknowledging the intricacies and nuances involved.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 emphasizing a reasonable cause for cash loan availment and demonstrating compliance with Section 273B of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant member) and George George K. (Vice President) observed that the matter needs fresh examination by the AO. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to examine whether there is “reasonable cause” as mandated under section 273B of the Act, for assessee to avail cash loans from its Directors. Accordingly appeal of the assessee was allowed
In recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted addition under Section 68 of Income Tax Act as genuineness of purchase and sale of shares is proven by producing documentary evidence.
The single-member bench of the tribunal, comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale ( Judicial member ) directed AO to delete the additions and allow the grounds of appeal in favor of the assessee, resulting in the allowance of the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the revision of bad debts allowed under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was no enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial member) Prashanth Maharishi (Accountant member) observed that “During the course of assessment proceedings neither there is any discussion not there is any detail called for by the assessing officer and therefore we do not find infirmity in the order of the learned principal Commissioner of income tax in holding that not making any enquiry by the learned assessing officer on this aspect makes the order of the learned AO erroneous so far as judicial to the interest of the revenue.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 11.6 lakhs pertaining to sales tax refund, which was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Coram of T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant member) do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the
CIT(A) holding the assessee’s claim of sales tax refund waived during the year amounting to Rs. 11,68,847/- as allowable expenditure.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the trust’s 80G(5) Registration Application back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT (E)) despite a 6-year delay.
The two-member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) set aside the order and restored the application before CIT(E) for decision afresh in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the addition of unutilized Central Value added Tax (CENVAT) credit, mandating its inclusion in the closing stock value as per Section 145 of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench if the tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale ( Judicial member) and Prashanth Maharishi ( Accountant member) find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in including the above sum in the closing stock of the assessee and thereby increasing the total income. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) refused to grant condonation for a 310-day delay, citing the taxpayer’s inability to substantiate the Chartered Accountant’s (CA) recommendation to transfer the case to an advocate and the advocate’s subsequent negligence in filing the appeal on time.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Beena Pillai (Judicial member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) found no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, ITAT considered the view that the assessee has failed to make out a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay and rejected the petition for condonation of delay.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed a pre-drafted penalty notice that included both concealed and inaccurately furnished income particulars.
The bench, comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member), noted that when the Assessing Officer indicates satisfaction for imposing penalties based on Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, failure to strike out irrelevant portions renders the notice defective. This defect would compromise the penalty proceedings
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while making directions to recompute the Short Term Capital Gain( STCG ), held that interest cost can not be claimed as business expenditure when the borrowed amount was utilized for making investment in shares.
After analyzing the submission of both parties, the bench comprising Narender Kumar Choudhry, ( Judicial Member ) & I Amarjit Singh, ( Accountant Member ) directs the assessing officer to treat the interest cost of Rs.122,26,476/- as cost of investment made towards purchasing the shares of M/s India Bull Real Estate Ltd. and re-compute the short term capital gain.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), after deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer, held that Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ) should not be deducted on account of commission income earned by foreign agents outside India.
The two-member bench of Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadale ( Judicial Member ) held that commission income earned by the agents cannot be termed to have incurred or arisen in India, and therefore, was not taxable in India.
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that there was no disallowance on payment towards the Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance (ESI) made before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After analyzing the submission of both parties, the two member bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)held that disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1) of Income Tax Act.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while upheld the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 observed that liability of directors continues even after dissolving the company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
the two-member bench of Annapurna Gupta, ( Accountant Member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadale,( Judicial Member ) held that upheld the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 observed that liability of directors continues even though after dissolving the company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards donation made to the ineligible scientific research trust.
The two member bench of Ramit Kochar, ( Accountant Member ) and Madhumita Roy, ( Judicial Member ) deleted the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act towards Donation made to ineligible Scientific Research Trust.
The Bangalore bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed education with respect to the source of money trail related to unsecured loan.
The two member bench of Chandra Poojari, ( Accountant Member ) and George George K.( Vice President ).The tribunal observed that the onus on the assessee is not only limited to establish the identity of the person making the advance but also his capacity to make advances and it has to be proved that it had actually been received as a loan from the creditor.
The Mumbai bench, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while allowing the deduction claimed by the HDFC Bank under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that bead debts arising out of the business of credit card services is part of banking activities.
the two member bench comprising Kuldip Singh, (Judicial Member) & Padmavathy S, (Accountant Member) held that bad debts arising out of the business of credit card services is part of the banking activities and the loss arising on account of unrecovered balance is arising out of the normal course of banking business. Accordingly, the same shall be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed readjudication in absence of cogent material to prove the cash transactions with respect to purchase of chemicals
The bench observed that the payments made to M/s Krishna Enterprise out of its regular banking channels In such a situation the revenue had not brought any material on record to prove that subsequent to payment by banking channels to the supplier, the supplier had in turn given back the cash to the assessee after reducing his / her commission if he / she is an accommodation entry provider. Therefore the entire addition has been made in the hands of the assessee only on suspicion.
The bench comprising M. Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) directs readjudication in absence of cogent material to prove the cash transactions with respect to purchase of chemicals .
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed readjudication on account of failure to establish legal expenses incurred from the trading loss as civil expenditure.
The tribunal observed that the assessee is a stock broker and was in the business as stock broking services and due to trading in the clients account, the client has filed the criminal case. However the assessee could not establish with the supporting evidence that the claim of the assessee is a civil expenditure allowable under the Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deletes disallowance made towards the staff welfare expenses without giving opportunity.
The tribunal observed that during the course of hearing, the AO had rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and estimated the income of the assessee by applying 10% to the gross turnover of the assessee. Therefore it was observed after examining the order of CIT(A) did not find any merit in the anomaly of salary mismatch between that reflected in the bank and that claimed by the assessee in its books as noted by the AO.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the ex parte assessment order passed without considering the Valuation report under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single-member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member)quashed the ex parte assessment order passed without considering the Valuation report under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, and the appeal of the assessee is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) to call for the remand report from the AVO and estimate the correct value of the property.
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )quashed the assessment order passed on violation of principle of natural justice.
The Two member bench of Girish Agrawal, ( Accountant Member ) & Sanjay Garg ( Judicial Member )observed that dherence to principles of natural justice is recognized by all civilized States and is of supreme importance when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. Natural Justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental.“
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the Section 155(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot restrict the Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ) credit if the income is properly disclosed in the Income tax Returns ( ITR ).
The bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal (Accountant member) directed the AO to allow full TDS credit to the assessee which is otherwise available as per Form 26AS. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(CIT(A)] to condone the 857-day delay in filing the appeal a the assessee has given proper explanation provided for the delay, encompassing 56 pre-COVID days.
e bench of Justice C.V. Bhadang and Manjunatha G. (Accountant member) considered the view that the CIT (A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of appeal to advance substantial justice. ITAT directed the first appellate authority to condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal for hearing and decide the issues involved on merit, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), deleted addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the orders of both the lower authorities are not sustainable because the assessee has demonstrated that it has made payment for purchase of this property through account payee cheque in installments on different dates.
The two member bench consisting Girish Agrwal ( Accountant member ) and Rajpal Yadav ( Vice President ), while deleting the addition, sets aside the file back to the assessing officer for reconsideration
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income and is not taxable under Article 12 of India- Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Dr.B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial member ) observed that the CIT (A) had fallen in error in making the deletion. It was observed that “After the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs CIT (supra), the issue with regard to taxability of the income from the sale of Software licenses subscription, stands settled and same is followed by ld. CIT(A), so there is no infirmity in the impugned orders, requiring interference.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Delhi, allowed depreciation claim under Section 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961, for building, furniture, and plant machinery blocks.
The bench of Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice president) opined that the assessee’s claim of depreciation was allowable. Even, otherwise also, the disallowance of depreciation would only enhance the profit of the assessee, which was otherwise eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench ruled that the Commissioner cannot invoke Revisional Jurisdiction to cancel Assessment.
The coram L.P.Sahu and S.S.Godara while allowing the appeal of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Apex court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Max India Ltd., and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex held that an assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, could only be revised in case it satisfies the twin conditions of erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of revenue; simultaneously. There is no such indication in the Pr. CIT’s above-extracted directions. Coupled with this, he has also directed the Assessing officer to cancel the assessment himself which the latter has no jurisdiction to do as per Section 263 of the Act.
The Delhi bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition made on the accrual basis with respect to the interest income earned from the arbitration award.
The bench comprising N.K. Billaiya, ( Accountant Member ) & Astha Chandra ( Judicial Member )relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shoorji Vallabhji and in the case of Godara Electricity Observed that the income which has to be recognized as per the system of accounting followed by the assessee in view of section 145 of the Income Tax Act if the income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a hypothetical income, which does not materialize.
The Ahmedabad bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the upward adjustment made towards the guarantee fee in favor of the bank with respect to transactions carried out by Associate Enterprise.
The bench comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) & Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) observed that The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has himself accepted to charge guarantee fee @ 0.8% as observed by CIT(A) in the appellate order. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject and the assessee’s own acceptance placed on record before the AO / TPO, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai bench has held that the loan taken from close relatives and friends cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit in order to attract section 68.
Tribunal held that “In this case, the assessee has filed all details to prove the identity of the loan creditors genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. In fact, the loans are taken from close family members and friends. It is not a case of the AO that the assessee had taken loans from certain unknown people whose identity is doubtful. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the AO is completely erred in making additions towards the loan taken from above parties as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed the assessment order after finding that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) failed to verify the adequacy of agricultural expenditure under Section 143(3), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that it is not sustainable in the interest of revenue.
A two member bench of the tribunal comprising Wassem Ahemed (Accountant member) and M.s Madumita Roy (Judicial member) observed that the agricultural receipts and the issue of adequacy of agricultural expenditure were not verified by the assessing officer, the order dated 01.02.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is palpably bad, not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed re-adjudication, ruling that interest on non-recovery of loans falls within the purview of business activity only and not under income from other sources.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Waseem Ahemad ( Accountant member ) and T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial member ) found it fit to remand this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts with proper materials and allow the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee was partly allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) responded to the taxpayer’s challenge against the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, which was deemed inconsistent with Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by directing the restoration of the matter for factual verification.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Dr B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Sakti Jit Dey ( Vice President ) observed that the assessee’s claim of deduction for computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act required fresh verification in the light of the Chart furnished by the assessee, which has been reproduced in the order.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to Hindustan Times by allowing expenditure incurred on paintings, deeming it essential for creating a conducive business environment.
The bench of Sakti Jit Dey ( Vice President ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member ) observed that the cost of paintings are meant for aesthetic purpose and for having better environment and accordingly to be construed as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee herein
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to ISRO Employees Society by condoning the delay and directing National Faceless Assessment Centre ( NFAC ) to consider Section 80P(2)(d) deduction claims under Income Tax Act, 1961, taking into account the submitted affidavit.
A two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member) and Beena Pillai ( Judicial member) deemed it appropriate to condone the delay as the reasons for the delay mentioned in the affidavits are sufficient to explain the delay caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. ITAT therefore condoned the delay caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal in all the appeals under consideration. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay dated 08.12.2023 stands allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the education cess cannot be allowed as allowable expense under Section 37 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of Dr. B.R.R Kumar (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S (Judicial member) held that the education Cess can’t be allowed as an allowable expense, accordingly the particular ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the income tax addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Income Tax Act, 1961 is not permitted without examining and finding fault in cash book produced by an assessee.
A Two-Member Bench comprising N K Billaiya, Accountant Member and Yogesh Kumar, Judicial Member observed that “In our considered opinion, the findings given by the CIT(A) on the cash book is baseless and perverse. The assessee having been produced the cash book and explained the cash found during the search and seizure operation contending that the cash found during the search are belongs to family members and considering the fact that even the Panchnama drawn during the search proceedings containing the names of the Assessee and other family members and the A.O. who has examined the cash book has not found fault on the same on the merit of it, in our considered opinion, the authorities have committed error in making/sustaining the addition.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the receipts by the taxpayer cannot be added to income for non-compliance of summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Sonjoy Sharma, Judicial Member and Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member observed that “In our opinion, once the assessee has filed the evidences as required by the AO in order to prove the share capital/share premium then the assessee has discharged his onus of filing the documents initially and the burden shifts to the Revenue. In other words, the AO has to carry out further verification/examination of these evidences and then come to a conclusion as to how the share capital/share premium is not proved and not merely on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the summons issued under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not invokable on simple disagreement with plausible views of the Assessing Officer (AO).
A Two-Member Bench comprising Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member observed that “We are of the view that it can be said to be plausible and possible view on the basis of evidences before the AO and the PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that he does not agree with the view taken by the AO and direct the AO to add the entire cash deposits in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked if twin conditions are satisfied i.e. order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as has been decided in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.”
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld that transfer pricing adjustment made on purchase consideration paid under the scheme of amalgamation entered with the holding company.
Amarjit Singh, ( Judicial Member ) & Sandeep Singh Karhail, ( Accountant Member )entire merger transaction is a mere restatement of accounts of the subsidiary companies without the actual transfer of any asset and liability by DIHBV. Hence the lower authorities have rightly held that shares of the assessee now held by DIHBV represent the fair value of the aforesaid merger transaction.
The Mumbai bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directs re-adjudication with respect to the rectification application filed for Mistaken in Income Tax Return by the tax consultant.
the bench comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) & S Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant Member) directs readjudication with respect to rectification application filed for Mistaken in Income Tax Return happened by the tax consultant
The Bangalore bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while directing re-adjudication with respect to genuineness of deposit made during demonetisation period held that not every deposit during demonetisation period would not fall under category of unaccounted cash.
the bench comprising Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) & Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) while directing re-adjudication observed that not every deposit during the demonetisation period would fall under category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash.
The Delhi bench, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while quashing the reassessment proceedings held that the Assessing officer failure to provide proper reason with respect to escapement of income regarding investment in house construction.
The tribunal observed that In the reasons recorded the AO has not given any details as to how the income more than 15 crores has escaped assessment. Nothing in the reasons specified as to how the escapement of income has been arrived at more than 15 crores. There is no live link between the reasons recorded and the materials on record when the reasons were recorded.
the bench comprising G.S. Pannu, (Vice President) & Challa Nagendra Prasad, (Judicial Member)quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that the Assessing officer failed to provide proper reason with respect to escapement of income regarding investment in construction house .
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) viewed that the assessee couldn’t contact the Tax Consultant due to a dislocation of business and remanded the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Since notices from the Office of the CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of his tax consultant who did not observe the mail on account of his father’s ill health, the Two member bench comprising of Shri George George K, Vice President and Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member directed to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision to uphold the genuine nature of Sunrise Asian share sales resulted in granting Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claims under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench noted that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A), both, had moved on the incorrect premise that the Assessee was not involved in trading of shares or that the Assessee only dealt with the script of Sunrise Asian. The Assessee has been registered as a sub-broker affiliated with Mangal Kseshav Securities limited since 2007. The coram of S. Rifafur Rahman (Accountant member) and Aby. T. Varkey (Judicial member) allowed the appeal of the assessee. And directed the AO to allow the LTCG claim of the assessee and delete the addition of Rs 25,12,070/
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
