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 Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication of a ₹10.95 lakh addition, citing the consultant’s failure to respond to hearing notices as the reason for the ex-parte decision.
A single-member bench comprising of Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice-President ) was informed that the consultant failed to respond to the notices, causing the appeal to be dismissed. It was also mentioned that the assessee was a small employee with income from agriculture and requested a chance to be heard. The Departmental Representative ( DR ) agreed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest income from deposits with Co-operative Banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) ruled that the interest income from deposits with the Co-operative Bank was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, and it directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the matter.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal of the assessee, relying on the landmark judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., and held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot make additions to the income of the assessee on new grounds if the original reason for reopening the assessment is not sustained. The assessee, Glasseye Traders Pvt. Ltd., filed its return for the assessment year 2013-14 on September 28, 2013, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,932.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot examine any other issue in Limited scrutiny except for which it was notified and any addition made outside the scope stating that it was arbitrary and invalid.
The two-member bench comprising Rajesh Kumar, ( Accountant Member ) and Sonjoy Sarma, ( Judicial Member ) observed that the addition by the AO of Rs.6,47,446 and disallowance of long-term capital loss claim of Rs. 1,11,746 exceeds the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore recently held that no penalty may be levied on an Assessee if they have made genuine disclosure of their Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) while proceeding to delete penalty imposed on the Assessee, being apprised of reasonable cause for failing to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member Bench of Padmavathy S., Accountant Member And Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member observed that though the disputed Rs.6 Lakhs was not made out in the agreement dated 30.04.2015, the Assessee had not adopted any means to hide the same and had rightfully claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act which was affirmed in reassessment proceedings.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under Section 41( 1 ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee successfully proved the validity of its outstanding trade payables.
In this case, the assessee, Arkis Enterprises, a private limited company engaged in trading commodities, chemicals, etc., filed its income tax returns for the assessment year 2012-13, declaring no taxable income after adjusting brought-forward losses of Rs. 43,454.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while adjudicating an appeal regarding concealment of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), directed the deletion of Income Tax Penalty of Rs.54 Lakh under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, being confident that the Assessing Officer had failed to mention the specific clause of Section 270A which had been invoked to ascribe such impugned penalty.
Appellant-Assessee Melekandy Puthalath Farook filed the present appeal before the ITAT being aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer (AO).
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the assessing officer ( AO ) made no addition in respect of the issue for which the assessment proceedings were initiated. From the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the assessee, it can be understood that the reassessment proceedings were begun due to the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had availed accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that in the present case, long-term capital gains cannot be deemed bogus as the assessing officer ( AO ) fails to prove price rigging.
The ITAT, comprising Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang( President ) and B.R. Baskaran ( Accountant Member ) held that long-term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be considered to be bogus and directed the AO to delete the additions.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned the 1030 days delay as the failure to file appeal was due to lack of knowledge about e-filing system. The bench remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh adjudication as per law.
Yadram, the appellant assessee challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ( CIT(A)/NFAC ) ’s order that refused to condone 1030 days’ delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 30.01.2019 against the assessment order dated 15.03.2016.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that timely deposit of employee Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees’ State Insurance ( ESI ) contributions is required for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Suddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) also referred to various other ITAT decisions, including Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda and Cemetile Industries, where disallowance of late deposits of employee contributions to EPF and ESI was upheld under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal observed that these decisions were consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the reassessment under section 147 of Income Tax Act,1961, stating that no material directly relating to the assessee was found during the search.
The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) agreed with the revenue counsel stating that since no material related to the assessee was found during the search, the assessment under section 147 was valid. Therefore, the claim for assessment under section 153C was rejected.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)held that the sale value of a property should be considered as of the agreement date under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) reviewed the submissions from both parties and examined the material on record, highlighting the key facts of the case. The assessee had entered into a Banakhat (agreement to sell) on 24/08/2010, which was inventorized on 25/08/2010, with an advance payment of ₹1 lakh. A sale deed for the residential property was later executed on 25/11/2011 for ₹42,00,000. The Revenue applied Section 50C of the Act, using the date of registration of the sale deed, i.e., 25/11/2011, as the basis.
In an important ruling, the Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the gain on sale of cryptocurrency ( bitcoin ) prior to the Assessment year ( AY ) 2022-23 is chargeable to tax as capital gains.
The two member bench of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi ( Judicial Member ) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai ( Accountant Member )held that the AO is incorrect in holding that to qualify as capital asset one should actually own something as property in as much as even if a person has a right or claim on a property it is also a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the losses from one industrial unit need not offset the profits of another for section 80-IB deduction under the Income Tax Act,1961.
This order deals with the assessee’s appeal against the four separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT( A ) ]relating to the assessment years ( AY ) 2002-03 to 2005-06.
In a recent ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), held that interest under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be calculated based on the tax due as per the returned income of the assessee.
In this case, the assessee, Shilpa Steel and Power Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing of steel products. It had filed its Income Tax Returns ( ITR ), declaring income of Rs. 38.22 crore for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the assessment for Assessment Year(AY) 2009-10 due to a jurisdictional error under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek(Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions and material presented. It noted that a search in the case of Sunstar Group was conducted on 19.12.2013, and a notice under section 153C was issued on 20.01.2016. As the satisfaction note was recorded before the notice was issued, the relevant assessment year was determined to be AY 2016-17.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)] after finding that the notices for the appeal had been sent to an incorrect email ID.
The two member bench comprising Vikas Awasthy ( Judicial Member ) and S Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) heard both sides and reviewed the orders of the authorities. It was found that the CIT(A) had sent notices to the assessee on five occasions. The assessee responded to one notice and asked for an adjournment, but did not respond to the other four. The assessee’s counsel submitted a copy of a notice dated 16.02.2024, showing that the notices were sent to the wrong email ID, which is why they were not received.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tax ( ITAT ) allowed the write-off of Rs.4.94 lakhs for non-recoverable dues from terminated trust members citing it as a non-refundable deposit in nature.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed the assessee’s argument that the security deposits were non-refundable and had been taken into the corpus of the Gymkhana.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter involving unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1.89 lakh, acknowledging that the amount was from cattle feed sales and that the agriculturist lacked knowledge of tax proceedings.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) admitted the additional evidence and decided to remand the matter back to the assessing officer for verification.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad while adjudicating an Income Tax Appeal observed that tax exemptions claimed by means of the Vivad Se Vishwas ( VSV ) Scheme may not be re-agitated through Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless any new facts are brought on record.
Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member, constituting the ITAT Bench noted that the PCIT order failed to address the detailed submissions made by the assessee with reference to the finality of the VSV Act, and inquiries conducted during the original assessment which the PCIT had summarily overlooked.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed all the grounds filed by the assessee and held that the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) by violating the principles of natural justice and quashes disallowance of interest on a grant of Rs. 4.18 crore.
The bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Memebr ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) criticized the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) for disallowing Rs. 4.18 crores as interest on unutilized government grants claimed by Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. ( GPCL ).
The two-member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that PCIT failed to substantiate why the AO’s order was erroneous or how the interest expenditure claims prejudiced revenue interests.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the ex parte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income tax passed considering old age of assessee. Through the order, the bench upheld the addition of unexplained investment.
A two member bench of Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, and Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member viewed that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO. The AO shall pass the order, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that the late submission of Form 10B was deemed a procedural lapse and should not be a reason to deny substantive claims. The tribunal granted exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1962.
The tribunal ruled that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Form 10B had been filed even though it was late and was part of the records during the assessment process. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a delay of 244 days and restored the ex-parte order to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the genuine hardships faced by the assessee.
The bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT( A ) and restored the matter to AO for fresh adjudication.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to Unexplained Share Premium Fluctuation within the same Financial Year.
The bench comprising T. R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) upheld the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) cannot disallow Section 11 exemption benefits that were previously granted in the intimation under Section 143(1) during rectification proceedings and ruled it acted beyond its scope.
The two-member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the CPC acted beyond its authority (“functus officio”) by revising its earlier order of granting exemption under section 11 in rectification proceedings.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),CIT(A), against the appeal filed by Revenue against relieving the penalty under section 271 E for the alleged violation of loan repayment by respondent.
The two member Bench comprised of Sanjay Garg(Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra(Accountant Member) firmly upheld the findings of the CIT (A), dismissing the imposition of the One Crore penalty. The case reinforces the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly when distinguishing between loan repayments and loan disbursements. This ruling serves as a reminder that penalties under tax law should not be imposed without a thorough understanding of the facts and the applicable legal provisions.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted a hearing opportunity, acknowledging the assessee’s non-compliance with the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) notices due to the ill-health of a family member.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) heard arguments from both sides and considered the material presented. The tribunal observed that the reason for the non-compliance to the notices issued by the AO was due to the ill health of the family member.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter for verification concerning CIT(A)’s disallowance of Rs. 1.41 crore exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for alleged additional residential property. The tribunal observed it was commercial property based on additional evidence.
The two-member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) and T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) observed from the additional documents submitted by the assessee that those were commercial property not residential.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the disallowance of short-term capital loss which was already adjusted in the previous assessment year (AY) but deleted the penalty levied by the assessing officer (AO) stating that lack of justification.
The two-judge Bench composed of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant member) observed that losses were not found from any independent source. The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) detected claims of losses from the material available to him. The Tribunal highlighted that if the losses were detected from an independent source it can be said that there was real intention to hide the total income.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Gross margin can be reduced to 6% from 12%, which was determined by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] CIT(A), considering the totality of the facts and merits of the case.
Bimal Ravjibhai Patel, the assessee, the Income Tax Authorities surveyed his place under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, and they impounded material of the assessee, which contained details about unaccounted cash income and expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) refused to give any benefit of cash expenses as the assessee failed to show the nature of the expenses after going through the impounded material.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter concerning the addition made without considering the assessee being a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), had only 50% ownership in the property.
Minal Prashant Vakil, the assessee, is an individual and a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) with income from capital gains and other sources. The main issue related to the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the assessing officer to determine the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property by considering the District Valuation Officer’s ( DVO) report from the co-owners case.
Niket Ravibhai Patel, the assessee, filed an income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14, declaring a total income of Rs. 10,98,540. The assessment was scrutinised due to lower reported capital gains than sale consideration for immovable properties.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that Section 271B penalty of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only when accounts are not audited as required under Section 44AB, not merely for a delay in the submission of the audit report
Vardhabhai Jethabhai Patel, the assessee, is an individual engaged in contractual work and filed an income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,57,350.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) after finding that the 8% profit margin estimate on Aircel recharge coupon sales was too high.
Chandan Singh Rana,appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 16.04.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]. In this case, the assessee’s counsel argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly added Rs. 22,89,114 as business income. The AO estimated the profit at 8% from Aircel recharge coupon sales, while in previous years, the profit margin was around 1.75%, which the Department had accepted.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), ruled that revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 are not maintainable after an assessment order is declared non est.
Defsys Solutions P. Ltd.,appellant-assessee, challenged the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT )’s order dated 28.02.2024 under Section 263 of the Act. The PCIT had used revisional powers on the Final Assessment Order passed on 20.01.2023 under Section 153A r.w.s 144C(13) for AY 2019-20. This same assessment order was appealed before the Tribunal in ITA No. 758/Del/2023, where the assessee argued that the order was invalid because it violated Section 144C of the Act.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Pr. CIT ) under section 263 of Income Tax Act,1961, citing an error in using the deceased person’s Permanent Account Number ( PAN ) in the revision order.
Veena Rani ( legal heir ), appellant-assessee, filed his income tax return on 21.12.2018, showing an income of Rs. 21,60,670/-. She received Rs. 2,54,24,007/- as interest on enhanced compensation from HUDA due to acquiring her agricultural land, with Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) of 10%.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed a reassessment of capital gains after ruling that the reliance on stamp duty valuation without a District Valuation Officer ( DVO ) report was unjustified.
Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani,appellant-assessee, filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on August 5, 2013, declaring an income of Rs. 65,92,970, which included salaries, trading income, capital gains, and other sources. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed discrepancies in the sale consideration declared for specific immovable properties in Jaipur compared to their stamp duty valuation (Jantri rate).
Recently, the Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an ex-parte order and remanded a case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reassessment as the assessee was denied a proper opportunity for hearing.
Chiragbhai Jadurai Patel, appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 250 of the Act.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Pr. CIT )’s order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961, which had directed a fresh assessment for verifying unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 44,72,000 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
Ashok Kumar, appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 17.03.2021 for the AY 2011-12 passed by the Pr.CIT. The assessee’s main ground was that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act, declaring the Income Tax Officer ( ITO )’s order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and directing a fresh assessment.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reduced the addition of unexplained cash deposits from Rs. 32 lakhs to Rs. 18.50 lakhs for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 due to an incorrect bank deposit amount, which was rectified by the Assessing Officer ( AO ).
Dineshkumar Somabhai Patel,appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 20/06/2024 by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for AY 2017-18. The issue was the addition of Rs. 32,00,000 to his income due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication due to the CIT(A)’s failure to provide a proper hearing notice to the assessee. Jainish Binitkumar Shah, the appellant-assessee, had assessment orders passed against him by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which were later upheld by the CIT(A) by orders dated 07/09/2023 and 15/09/2023.
The assessee, a business entity trading cattle feed and maise products contested the CIT(A)’s orders, asserting that they were passed in haste without giving proper opportunity for presenting relevant evidence. According to the taxpayer, the notices for the hearings were not adequately served, and the assessments were conducted ex-parte.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the Income of beneficiaries of assessee-trust cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee-trust, providing relief to the taxpayer on cash deposits while dismissing the deduction claim under section 143(1) for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2019-20.
The assessee, Aquagel Promoter Group Shareholders Trust, filed its return of income for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2019-20, declaring nil income. The returns filed by the assessee were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) sent the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh hearing, as the CIT(A) had rejected the appeal in one paragraph without discussing the merits, which violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Pragya Thareja,appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 30.03.2017 for the Assessment Year(AY) 2014-15 passed by the CIT(A) under section 143 of the Act.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)quashed the disallowance of ₹3.07 Crores for contingent liabilities, including ₹1.37 Crores for Guaranty and ₹1.71 Crores for Capital Commitments, as the expenses were not claimed in the Profit and Loss (P&L) account for the year ending 31st March 2021.
Everest Blower Systems Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 30.04.2024 for the assessment year 2021-22 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]. The primary issue in the appeal was the disallowance of ₹3.07 Crores under Section 37 for contingent liabilities, including ₹1.37 Crores for Guaranty and ₹1.71 Crores for Capital Commitments.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], which quashed the second-round assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 due to the lack of mandatory approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue-appellant challenged the order dated 07.01.2016, passed by CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The case involved S.S. Con-Build Pvt. Ltd., the respondent-assessee, whose second-round assessment was quashed by the CIT(A) for not obtaining prior approval under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
