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.
In a recent ruling the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowed to enterprise carrying civil contract work for developer of infrastructure facility.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manohan Das ( Judicial member ) and Manju Natha G ( Accountant member ) set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of deduction under Section 80- IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, in light of necessary evidences including agreement entered into by the appellant with various departments and ascertain the nature of works executed by the assessee, in order to consider for the purpose of section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, and decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee allowed
Non-cooperation with Income Tax Assessment Proceedings, Relevant Details and Records Not Produced: ITAT Directs Re-Adjudication
The Indore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed re-adjudication due to non-cooperation with income tax assessment proceedings and failure to produce relevant details and records
The two-member bench of B.M.Biyani ( Accountant member) and Vijay Pal Rao ( Judicial member) observed that the addition made by the AO since the assessee has not cooperated during the assessment proceedings and relevant details and records were not produced consequently, the AO has made the addition for want of the explanation, relevant details and record to explain the source of investment.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted Rs. 39.2 Lakhs Cash Credit Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing absence of adverse findings on purchases or stock.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharath (Judicial member) observed that invoking the provision of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, would not be justified. It is not a case of inflated purchases but AO treated cash sales being bogus without disturbing the book results.
Therefore it was held that the authorities below have committed error in making impugned addition without bringing any adverse material in respect of purchases and stock of assessee. The impugned order was set aside and the AO was directed to delete the impugned addition. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ordered a reconsideration, directing fresh adjudication. This decision comes as submissions regarding Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) deductions under Sections 194J or 194C for payments related to X-Ray and CVC machine maintenance were not considered.
The bench of G.S.Pannu ( Vice President ) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) restored this matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file all the evidence to support their contentions before the AO. All the issues in the appeal are left open for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal for AY 2019-20 is also restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Depreciation Must be Removed While Calculating Net Margin: ITAT
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that depreciation must be removed while calculating net margin. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of TPO/AO for further calculation of TP adjustment by considering the direction of the Bench.
A two-member bench comprising Dr Manish Borad, Accountant Member &Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member viewed that the depreciation should be removed for calculation of net profit margin and cash PLI is the justified method. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of TPO/AO for further calculation of TP adjustment by considering the direction of the Bench.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has allowed Union Bank of India to claim deduction under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) for dividends received from cooperative bank shares.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Mahavir Singh observed that the assessee is a multi-state cooperative society, registered under the multi-state cooperative Societies Act, 2012 at Chennai. The members of the assessee’s society are all employees of Union Bank of India. Assessee extended credit facilities like surety loans, festival loans, calamity loans etc. to its members. Assessee received Rs.3, 77,800/- as dividend from shares held in Chennai Central Co-operative Bank
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has allowed Union Bank of India to claim deduction under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) for dividends received from cooperative bank shares.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Mahavir Singh observed that the assessee is a multi-state cooperative society, registered under the multi-state cooperative Societies Act, 2012 at Chennai. The members of the assessee’s society are all employees of Union Bank of India. Assessee extended credit facilities like surety loans, festival loans, calamity loans etc. to its members. Assessee received Rs.3, 77,800/- as dividend from shares held in Chennai Central Co-operative Bank
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed appeal citing a lack of proper explanation for the 726-day delay. The appeal is time barred by 726 days. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2021 and assessee has disclosed the date of service of the impugned order on 07.09.2021 as per form no.36
A single member bench of Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) found no reasonable cause as it seemed that this is a cooked story and the assessee could not file any supporting materials like medical certificate i.e. family members were affected by covid per and for how long. Even otherwise there is a long delay of 726 days which was not properly explained.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the failure to prove the genuineness of the share purchase transaction claim and the creditworthiness of the invested company.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) uphold the finding of the CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee on the merit of the addition are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that Short Term Capital Loss ( STCL ) offsettable against Short Term Capital Gain ( STCG ) across assets regardless of tax rate disparity under Section 70 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith Singh ( Accountant member ) observed that the provisions of section 70(2), STCL arising from any asset can be set off against STCG arising from any other asset under a similar computation made irrespective of different rate of tax. Therefore following the decision of ITAT, the bench allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gain from sale of equity shares not taxable as per Article 13 (4) of India – Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharat ( Judicial member) and Dr. B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member) concluded that will not preclude the assessee from claiming benefit under Article 13(4) of the Treaty when the capital gain clearly falls within the ambit of Article 13(4) of the Treaty. ITAT allowed the assessee’s additional ground and held that the capital gain derived by the assessee from the sale of equity shares is not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled deduction cannot be claimed by Assessee when employees’ contribution not being paid to the respective Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees State Insurance Act ( ESI ) Acts.
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manish Board (Accountant member) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) concluded that according to the revenue there was no debate on this point at the level of the assessing officer. At the time litigation was raised to the level of CIT (A), the Supreme Court had decided the position of law. Therefore, there was no merit in this fold of contention also. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the source for deposits made during the demonetization period has been substantiated.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial member) and M.S.Pathmavathy S (Accountant member) viewed that the assessee has discharged the onus of substantiating the source for the deposits made in SBN during demonetisation period and that the addition made by the revenue without disputing the business income of the assessee is not tenable. In view of the above discussion, ITAT considered that the addition of Rs 33,40,327/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Rs. 52.9 lakhs as there is no Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) liability, given that the property sold was agricultural land, and the computation of total income has been submitted as evidence.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) and George George K (Vice President) found the assessee had not declared any admitted tax. On the facts of the instant case, assessee had claimed the receipt is for sale of agricultural land and not liable for capital gains. Since assessment has been completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of INR 60.1 Lakhs after the appellant’s bank statements confirmed full payment and compliance with Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amarjit Singh ( Accountant Member ) and Rahul Chaudhary ( Judicial Member ) concluded that the conditions laid down in second proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act were also satisfied the addition of Rs.60,19,506/- made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and is therefore, deleted. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the adjustment regarding the arm’s length pricing of export commission payment against Honda subsidy.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) allowed this ground of the appeal and thereby directed the transfer pricing officer/assessing officer to delete the adjustment on account of the arm’s-length price of the export commission payment of ₹495,348,444/-. ITAT respectfully followed the earlier decision of the coordinate Bench and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The addition is deleted. Accordingly, Appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has disallowed the taxpayer’s claim under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the taxpayer failed to construct a residential house within the stipulated three-year period from the date of transfer of the old house.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member) found no error or infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in denying the benefit of deduction to the assessee under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, accordingly, ITAT found no merit in the Ground of Appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing denial of the opportunity to be heard.
the two-member tribunal bench, consisting of N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), nullified the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case to the AO. The AO was directed to furnish the assessee with a copy of Mr. Nem Chand Gupta’s statement, obtained by the Investigation Wing, along with any other relevant material utilized against the assessee. Furthermore, the tribunal mandated that witnesses whose statements were relied upon should be made available for cross-examination. The assessee will be granted ample opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Revenue’s appeal deemed allowed for statistical purposes
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that tax treaty benefits cannot be denied solely based on the mobile number provided in the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) showing fraud in True caller.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial member) hold that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was liable to benefit provided under Article 24 which provides that Government of one contracting state shall be exempt from tax in other contracting states in respect of any income derived by such income from that other contracting states. Since Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has been specifically mentioned in Article 24(2)(b)(ii), therefore, none of its income is taxable in India. Accordingly, charging of interest of Rs. 365.40 crores was held to be non-taxable in India. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) credit and self-assessment tax, as the Department of Inland Revenue Sri Lanka certifies the assessee’s gross remuneration.
The bench of M.S Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member) and Amarjith Singh ( Accountant member) was directed to allow the credit of TDS amount and self-assessment tax to the assessee after examination of the copy of tax residency certificate and copy of tax certificate as referred above submitted by the assessee. Therefore, both the appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the failure to prove the genuineness of the share purchase transaction claim and the creditworthiness of the invested company.
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) uphold the finding of the CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee on the merit of the addition are dismissed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal citing a lack of proper explanation for the 726-day delay. The appeal is time barred by 726 days. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2021 and assessee has disclosed the date of service of the impugned order on 07.09.2021 as per form no.36.
A single member bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) found no reasonable cause as it seemed that this is a cooked story and the assessee could not file any supporting materials like medical certificate i.e. family members were affected by covid per and for how long. Even otherwise there is a long delay of 726 days which was not properly explained.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed readjudication after finding that the lower authority failed to examine the ownership and leasehold rights of property sold on behalf of the assessee.
The tribunal observed that core issue of ownership, acquisition of leasehold rights and subsequent sale of property/lease hold rights have not been examined by the revenue nor the assessee has furnished the relevant explanation as to why and how the amounts have been received by the assessee if the property is not owned by her.
The Jodhpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) has held that cash deposited by a 77-year-old age assessee looking to save for old age holding cannot be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench of Dr S Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member observed that the assessee is 77 years age and looking to the old age holding the cash out of the accumulated savings to the extent of Rs. 9,50,597/- cannot be doubted. The court viewed that the assessee has deposited cash into her bank account for an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- cannot be added as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act for the year under consideration and directed to delete the addition made in hands of the assessee. While allowing the appeal, the ITAT directed to delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT) confirmed the addition made by Income Tax Authorities on the gross profit margin @ 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchase by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee has failed to rebut the statement of Rajesh Doshi by any documentary evidence before the lower authorities or before the Tribunal.
The two member Bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee has failed to rebut the statement of Rajesh Doshi by any documentary evidence neither before the lower authorities nor before the Tribunal.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that utilising specific money deposited in a capital gain account scheme towards new investment is not mandated under the Income Tax Act,1961. There is no requirement that specific money as deposited in a capital gain account scheme should be utilized towards new investment, and the assessee may make investments from other funds as available to him and the same would not jeopardize the claim of the assessee.
The Bench found that the lower authorities had considered the dates of the construction agreement as the relevant dates to examine the claim of the assessee overlooking the fact that the construction agreement had stipulations that the construction would be completed in 18 months from the date when the builder gets approval.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that CIT (Appeals) cannot delete Disallowance without observing findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) and directed the CIT(A) to consider the arguments of both sides i.e. the AO and the assessee.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(A) has coterminous power with the AO. The appeal proceedings with the CIT(A) are also a continuity of assessment proceedings, and therefore, the CIT(A) gravely erred in deleting the disallowance on the basis that adverse information in the possession of the AO was not revealed during the assessment proceedings, nor modus operandi adopted by various entities.
The Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) explained that a typographical error in mentioning the incorrect amount of expenses in Form 3CD does not call for any addition by the Assessing Officer to the assessee’s income.
The Bench found that due to a typographical error in form 3CD, the total commission or brokerage expenses for the financial year 2017-2018 has been disclosed at Rs.2,19,38,339/- which is an incorrect figure and incorrectly entered due to a typographical error. The Tribunal also noted that the profit and loss account, form No.3CB, Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2018-19 clearly reflects that the amount entered in form 3CB of Rs.2,1938,339/- is wrongly entered and the correct figure is Rs.1,45,83,780/-.
In a recent case, the Chandigarh bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that merely making entries in books does not discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the claim of cost of improvement of assets. It was noted that the assessee had failed to discharge the initial burden of proof rested on him to substantiate his claim of having incurred expenditure on improvement of the property.
The two member Bench of Aakash Deep Jain ( Vice President ) and Vikram Singh Yadav ( Accountant Member ) observed that merely making entries in the books of accounts and producing bills which are deficient in providing basic information regarding the transaction, is not sufficient for discharge of initial burden of proof on the assessee regarding its claim of cost of improvement.
The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that disallowance under section 57(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on expenses incurred wholly for earning Income From Other Sources. In the absence of the assessee’s explanation, there was no nexus between the interest-bearing funds and their utilization for making advances for earning interest income.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) observed that what section 57(iii) requires is that expenses must have been incurred to earn income to be eligible to claim the same against the said income.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against claim of foreign tax credit with respect to profit earned from singapore branch office
During the adjudication the bench observed that the Singapore income which is already offered to tax in Singapore is included in the Total income returned in India, thus the taxes paid at Singapore needs to be given credit in the total tax payable in India.
The Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be restricted to the extent of gross profit at the same rate of genuine purchases.
A two member bench of Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had given the quantitative sales corresponding to the quantitative purchase, which is from alleged bogus suppliers. The Bench found that the resultant gross profit from alleged bogus purchases and sales is 5.096%.
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that Section 194C of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not applicable on the payments made by the assessee unless a charge is being determined.
After reviewing the facts the ITAT bench of Rajpal Yadav, (Vice-President) and Rajesh Kumar(Accountant Member) observed that Section 194C of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not applicable on the payments made by the assessee unless a charge is being determined.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while upheld the Short Term Capital Gain ( STCG ) from the transfer of the non agriculture land observed that the assessee failed to prove the ownership of the company with respect to purchase agreement of land for development of the property.
It was observed by the AO that the land was earlier purchased by the appellant assessee, hence, added short-term capital gain of ₹1,45,60,000/- in his total income for the relevant AY 2016-17.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) viewed that the bonafide mistake of applying for registration in Form 10 AB instead of Form 10 A is condonable and directed the CIT(E) to dispose of the request of the assessee by allowing it to apply under Form 10A.
CIT(E) observed that on an earlier occasion, the assessee applied under 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act instead of 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, since the assessee holds a registration under section 12A of the Act, issued on 26/12/2005. Assessee submitted that by mistake, on earlier occasion, wrong code under section 12A(1)(ac)(iv) of the Act was selected instead of 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act and, therefore, the mistake may be excused and registration may be done. CIT(E) rejected the application filed in Form 10AB for regular registration under section 12AB of the Act, holding it infructuous and barred by limitation.
In a recent case, the Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to specifically examine the genuineness of the charitable activities performed by the trust as per his satisfaction. The court observed that CIT(E) cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee trust and also rejected the registration of the said applicant trust under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two member bench comprising of Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(E) must come up with a speaking order as to the activities performed by the applicant trust and given those activities whether they are genuine or not, meaning thereby he must conduct adequate examination and verification of facts and form his opinion accordingly and at the same time, he must mention regarding the applicant trust whether it is also abiding with the existing laws in force, these areas are not at all discussed and adjudicated in the order of CIT(E).
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the ad hoc disallowance made without rejecting books of account was not justified and needed to be deleted. The court observed that when books of account maintained by the assessee having been duly audited have not been rejected by the AO the ad-hoc disallowance made based on surmises is not sustainable.
AO noticed that the assessee has not furnished even the documentary proof for the major expenses claimed under the heads freight, transport, coolie and cartage, loading/unloading charges, godown expenses, other expenses, brokerage/commission on purchases etc. nor has filed ledger in relation to these expenses. So the AO reached the conclusion that the assessee has failed to substantiate the expenses, hence made adhoc disallowance of 10% of the expenses which comes to Rs.7,85,54,891/- and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘the Act’.) On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed to allow the stamp duty and registration charges after due verification. It was viewed that when the assessee has incurred the amount in question to complete the transfer as per the scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT, without which the transfer could not have been effected.
A two-member bench comprising Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) observed that when it is proved on record that the assessee is entitled for upfront lease rental expenses incurred in relation to the transfer of slump sale business while computing the capital gains under section 48(i) of the Act the assessee is also entitled for deduction of stamp duty and registration charges.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments received by the assessee towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers or end users cannot be considered royalties to be brought to tax in India.
The two-member bench of Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) has observed that the process involved in providing the services to the end users or customers is not “secret” but a standard commercial process followed by industry players. Therefore, the process also cannot be classified as a “secret process,” as is required by the definition of “royalty” mentioned in clause 3 of Article 12 of the India-Japan DTAA.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that income tax is applicable on unsold flats in the real estate business as of AY 2018–19. The Tribunal further deleted the notional rent.
The two member bench of Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) has observed that the CIT(A) has erred in as much as it relied upon the provisions brought into statute by the Finance Act, 2017, and Section 23(5) has not been held to have a retrospective effect. Therefore, if the rental income has been taxed, then the assessee is equally eligible for the vacancy allowance as per Section 23(1)(c) for the vacant commercial units.
The two member bench of Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to all apartment units received pursuant to Joint Development Agreement ( JDA).
It was observed that the AO had denied the exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of 14 apartment units for the reason that pursuant to the JDA, assessee had received multiple residential units and not a single residential unit.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the evidence related to agreement of sale.
The tribunal observed that the AO has not even made any enquiry about the value of the property purchased by the assessee. Since the document relied as incriminating material to make addition in assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, is not one which is kept in ordinary course of business, and the author of the document is not identified and disclosed to the assessee and the transaction is not verified by any enquiry, then only on the content of the documents the addition is not justified.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld that cash sales of business of trading of gold /silver jewelry during the demonetisation period were bonafide.
After reviewing the facts the ITAT bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Accountant Member) upheld that cash sales of business of trading of gold /silver jewelry during the demonetisation period were bonafide.
The two member bench of Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed to verify the real intention of trust regarding the purchase of land for the construction of a school building.
The tribunal observed that t authorities always have the freedom to “go behind” documents to find out the real intention of the parties as always been recognized.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed readjudication after finding that the Income Tax Department failed to consider the receipts from the offshore supplies as income of Permanent Establishment ( PE ).
Accordingly the bench observed that various claims and contentions of the assessee have not been considered by the departmental authorities, while attributing part of the receipts from offshore supplies as income of the PE
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the assessing officer could not rectify an issue which had already been decided by way of appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
The tribunal observed that the provisions o f Section 154 stipulates that the Assessing Officer is an empowered to rectify any mistake apparent from the record under Section 154(1) and as per Section 154(1A), the Assessing Officer is also no t empowered to rectify any matter that has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs.16.8 lakhs, stating that there was no cogent evidence to establish that the properties sold by the taxpayer were agricultural land.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal (Accountant member) found that there was no cogent evidence to establish that the properties sold by the assessee were agricultural land. The assessee was also unable to furnish any evidence of incurring expenditure also.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the identity, creditworthiness of the share-subscribing companies, and the genuineness of the transactions were proven.
The AO observed that during the relevant year the assessee had raised share application money of Rs. 20 lakh each from Terminal Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Vanaspati Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. These two companies were allotted 20000 shares each of face value of Rs. 10/- each with a premium of Rs. 90/- each. The AO also noted that both the share subscribing companies had replied under Section 133(6) vide their letter dated 27.10.2017 whereby they had explained the source of their investment made into the assessee company.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
