This yearly digest analyzes all the ITAT stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore restores matter to the file of Assessing Officer (AO), on the ground that there was no discharge of onus to substantiate claim of deduction under income from other sources with required documents evidences.
A Division Bench consisting of Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and, George George K, Judicial Member observed that “The assessee has to necessarily prove that shewas only in receipt of total saleable area of 41,947 sq.ft. in exchange of undeveloped land of 87,120 sq.ft. This exercise needs to be done by the assessee before the A.O. Accordingly, the entire issue is restored to the files of the A.O. The assessee shall also produce the necessary evidence to prove that a sum of Rs.3,41,133 are expenses attributable to the sale of developed sites. The assessee shall cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. The A.O. shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench while upholding the business income which surrendered after the survey proceeding and observed that excess stock and excess cash found during survey proceedings are recorder in books of account.
After reviewing the facts and submission, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S (Judicial Member) determined that assessee offered additional income under excess stock and excess cash during the course of survey and same were entered in the books of account as on the last day of financial year ending on 31-03-2018 and offered the said amounts to tax under the business income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur Bench held that Income from letting out properties along with other amenities are chargeable to tax under the head of Income from business. Therefore, the bench deleted the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
It was observed by the tribunal that the assessee was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose for verification of refund claim and income from house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry .
After reviewing the facts and submission the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Gosain, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the revision order passed by the Principal commissioner of Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench upheld disallowance made under Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 towards donation given to school of Human Genetics and Population.
During the appeallate proceedings, the tribunal found that the issues are already covered in against the assessee in case of Hiralal Bhandari vs. ITO.Therefore, the bench considering the decision of the above order of case dismissed the appeal.
After reviewing the order in case of Hiralal Bhandari vs. ITO, the two -member bench of the tribunal comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) held that donations given to the School of Human Genetics and Population as bogus.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed readjudication on the grounds of unawareness of notice uploaded in e-filing portal on Counsel’s e-mail ID and failure to show explanation on cash deposits in bank and post office.
After hearing both the parties, the tribunal observedthat the assessee, due to his advanced age, and being unaware of the notices issued, which were not served on him, but were uploaded on the e-filing portal at the email ID of his earlier counsel who did not make due compliances. Thus, did not appear before the Assessing Officer to provide the explanation on the cash deposits. The two-member bench comprising of A.D. Jain and Vikram Singh Yadav remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench deleted the addition made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of gold loan obtained from partner which was recorded under books of account. During the appeal proceedings, the tribunal observed that the assessee has given detailed explanation about the nature and source of the said gold loan. Also, assessee is maintaining the books of account on Historical Cost Concept Method (HCCM)
After reviewing the facts and submission the two-member bench of the tribunal comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition made by the lower authorities.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed readjudication on grounds of non verification of additional evidence by the assessing Officer (AO).
The two bench member comprising of Durga Rao and G. Manjunatha observed that the matter pending before the Indian Council of Arbitration had not attained its finality as the hearing of the case had been fixed as 31t January, 2023 and 1st February, 2023.
Thus the tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after considering the submissions made before the CIT(A).
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed fresh adjudication on the grounds of notices for hearing not received
The two-member bench comprising of Prashant Maharishi and Sandeep Singh Karhaildirected the assessee to furnish all the details in support of its claim before the CIT(A) within 90 days of the receipt of the order and thereafter notice of hearing be issued by the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench while deleting the revision order passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 held that interest income earned by cooperative bank on investments made with other cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80 (2)(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
It was observed by the tribunal that interest income was earned from the cooperative banks, the cooperative bank is also a specie of cooperative society. Therefore, the interest income earned by the cooperative society from the cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
After reviewing the facts and submission the two-member bench of the tribunal comprising R.S. Syal (Vice-President) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. held that interest income earned on the investment of surplus money with banks is also eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the revision order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench ruled that no penalty shall be levied when no variation is found in returned income and assessable income.
It was observed by the tribunal that the assessment order and no demand raised by the AO and no disallowance or addition made by the AO. Further, in the present case, there was no variation in the returned income declared by the assessee which was accepted by the AO in the reassessment proceedings.
After reviewing the facts and submissions, the two-member bench of the tribunal comprising R.S. Syal (Vice-President) andS.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) held that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income attracting the provisions under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as the assessee made complete disclosure in the return of income and further offered the same for taxation.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed penalty on the grounds that an inadvertent error in statement made by the assessee during Hearing cannot be Reason for Levy of penalty under Section 272(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member bench comprising of Vikas Awasthy and S. held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in providing the details by the assessee and since the assessee in the end had shared all the relevant details, levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(c) is not warranted. Accordingly, the penalty thus levied was deleted
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to re-adjudicate the case of a taxpayer who did not respond to notices issued by the NFAC due to his lack of familiarity with the ITBA portal.
The tribunal observed the submissions of the assessee that the NFAC did not consider the specific circumstances of the case, however, the NFAC may argue that its findings were justified. NFAC did not consider the taxpayer’s lack of response to the notices when making its findings. The Second appellate authority noted that the taxpayer had not received any training on how to use the ITBA portal and that they had not been given any clear instructions on how to respond to the notices.
The Two Member Bench of Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) partially allowed the assessee’s appeal against the NFAC’s 2017-18 assessment year order, vacating the order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The ITAT held that the assessee’s lack of familiarity with the ITBA portal was a factor in their failure to comply with notices and directed the NFAC to give the assessee a fair hearing and consider the assessee’s arguments in detail.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the Assessing Officer (AO) for failing to follow the procedures prescribed under the Income Tax Act.
The Bench of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) agreed with the assessee that the ITO Kolkata lacked the authority to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and ruled that the ITO Kolkata had no basis to think that taxable income was evading assessment since the assessee’s jurisdiction had been shifted to Kolkata under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT further determined that ITO Kolkata failed to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act before making the assessment, which is required for assuming authority to frame an assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Consiquently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue’s appeal and reversed the
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Kolkata Bench has issued a directive for the reassessment of a case where there was a discrepancy between the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) reported in Form 26AS and the profit and loss account. This discrepancy arose due to insufficient supporting evidence.
The Two Member Bench Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh with a direction that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant documents to prove his contention and thereafter the Assessing Officer will examine and verify the documents and thereafter pass a speaking order accordingly.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed an appeal by an assessee who was liable to pay a late filing fee for delay in filing a Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) statement.
The tribunal stated that “the assessee had the responsibility to deduct and deposit the TDS and also file the TDS statement within the stipulated time. The delay in filing the TDS statement was not deliberate, however, the assessee cannot escape from the liability to pay the late filing fee.”
The Two Member bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice- President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) held that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The bench upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], confirming the imposition of a late filing fee of Rs. 1,59,200 on the assessee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed an appeal by an assessee who was liable to pay a late filing fee for delay in filing a Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) statement.
The tribunal stated that “the assessee had the responsibility to deduct and deposit the TDS and also file the TDS statement within the stipulated time. The delay in filing the TDS statement was not deliberate, however, the assessee cannot escape from the liability to pay the late filing fee.”
The Two Member bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice- President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) held that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The bench upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], confirming the imposition of a late filing fee of Rs. 1,59,200 on the assessee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act.
The Bombay High Court held that capital gain as unexplained income is not valid when the sale of shares was substantiated with documentary evidence and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT).
The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange.
A division bench comprising Justice K R Shriram & Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla found no infirmity in the tribunal’s order and while dismissing the appeal of revenue, upheld the order of ITAT.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted an addition of Rs. 37,35,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of unexplained investment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been a regular taxpayer for more than ten years and that her return income had always been accepted in the past which shows that there is no unexplained investments.
A Single Member of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member), held that the AO has failed to follow the procedures prescribed under Section 148 of the Act in issuing the notice for reopening the assessment. Specifically, the AO has not provided the assessee with a copy of the information on which the reopening of the assessment was based. As a result, we hold that the addition made by the AO is invalid and Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench recently quashed the penalty imposed under Section 271F of Income Tax Act, 1961 against 82-year-old widow due to non-filing of Income Tax Return (ITR).
The tribunal observed the ruling of the CIT(A) that “Penalty under section 271F is not mandatory. AO may direct the defaulter to pay a penalty of Rs.5000/-. In this case the appellant is a senior citizen and widow aged 82. The case was done exparte under section 144 r. w.s. 147. The appellant has never filed return income as she is a housewife and had no taxable income. Having looked at her condition, the AO may have waived off the penalty under section 271F.”
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the Two-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) and C. M. Garg (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Shikhar Garg,counsel appeared for the Assessee. Ravi Kant Choudhary, appeared for the revenue during the proceedings.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that an assessment order lacking the Document Identification Number (DIN) within the body of the order violates the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and will be considered invalid.
The tribunal noted that in order prevent manual practice of issuance of notice, order, summons, letter or any other correspondence and to maintain proper audit trail of all communication the CBDT in exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, has mandated the income tax authority w.e.f. 01/10/2019 for generation, allotment and communication of computer generated DIN in relation to any assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, investigation, verification of information, penalty, etc.
The two bench members consisting of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) & G. D. Padmashali (Accountant Member) held that the assessment order is to be treated as never been issued, therefore ceases to have any effect in the eyes of law. In view of this categorical finding, delving deeper into merits of the case is unwarranted.Hence the appeal was allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Mere ground of being benefitted from fraudulent transaction doesn’t prove being a beneficiary to such fraud.
The tribunal came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment merely on the ground that the appellant had benefited from the Client Code Modification by which profits of certain amount were shifted out by the assessee resulting in deduction of assesse’s taxable income. Thus, there was no live link between the information received by the Assessing Officer from DIT and the belief found by the Assessing Officer that income had escaped assessment.
The bench consisting of Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member said that he was of the considered opinion that the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of Income Tax Act is bad in law. Therefore, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer becomes nullity in law. Thus, the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that relief Granted by deleting one Addition doesn’t mean to deny all other reliefs.
The bench consisting of Inturi Rama Rao and Viswanethra Ravi held that the approach adopted by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) was illegal and unreasonable and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order of the NFAC is set-aside for de novo adjudication of the issues in appeal afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
The Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that parallel assessment should be made in respect of the same Income on different persons. Therefore, the bench deleted the addition made on the protective basis.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two-member bench of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar, (Judicial Member) observed that assessee provide all documents and source of the funds before the assessing officer. Further, it was also noted that the assessment made in the case of Hansaben Manilal Patel wherein the sale of land has been duly taxed on substantive basis which was not challenged before any authority. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi Bench ruled that no addition should be made on behalf of the assessee in respect of cash deposited in a joint bank account by the second account holder.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the Two member bench of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) observed that the cash deposited by the second holder of the joint account and the amount was the sale consideration earned from sale of agricultural land.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad Bench held that the assessee failed to explain the credit card payments with supporting documentary evidences. Hence, the bench deleted the partial addition.
The tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to explain the credit card payments with supporting documentary evidence. Thus, the assessee has also failed to provide satisfactory explanations or any documentary evidence like bank statements, for holding such a significant amount in cash and not depositing it in a bank.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a Single member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) held that due to lack of supporting documentation deleted the partial addition.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition made by the lower authority due to failure to explain the large share premium received.
The tribunal during the proceedings observed that no one is appearing on behalf of the assessee also there is a delay of 565 days in filing the present appeal which is not backed up by any petition for condonation of delay. It was also observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions of shares. Thus, the assessee has failed to provide satisfactory explanations for proving the large share premium received.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a Single member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) upheld the addition made by the lower authority.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that issue of notice under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory requirement for framing reassessment order. Therefore which was not curable as per Section 292BB of Income Tax Act.
It was also found that provision of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act would apply with regard to failure of service of notice and not with regard to failure of issue of notice. Therefore, failure of AO in reassessment proceedings to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act prior to finalizing the reassessment order cannot be condoned by referring to the provision of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act.
After reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a single member bench of C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) quashed the reassessment order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench Dismissed the rectification order passed under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without setting off business loss against property Income and Income from other sources.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a Single member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee’s return of income has clearly set out that the total business loss was into minus at (-) Rs. 1,90,707/-.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed for non-payment of the service tax for installation commissioning services on the ground of Limitation.
The Bench observed that there was no wilful suppression on the part of the assessee and the decision made by the adjudicating authority was as per the law and liable to be sustained. The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the impugned order was legally correct and tenable and that the revenue’s appeal was not maintainable while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench by allowing appeal filed by the assessee held that the Assessing officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 144C of Income Tax Act, 1961 for passing draft assessment order.
After reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) observed that the assessing officer has failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act at the stage of passing draft assessment order Hence the final assessment order will become null and void and the mistake could not be curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the special auditor highly followed the procedures prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India while auditing ad that the Assessing Officer cannot simply reject or discard the special audit report merely for the reason that the findings in the special audit report are adverse/contrary to the appraisal report submitted by the investigation wing.
The bench V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Technical Member) observed that the special auditor has sought necessary confirmations from various persons with whom the appellant had transactions of purchases, sales, expenses etc., in accordance with the Standards on Auditing (SA)-505 prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the survival benefit of Rs. 2.25 lakhs on death of his father received by him was an exempt income under Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two Member bench comprising Rama Kanta Panda (Vice President) and K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member) held that the assessee could raise the points of law even through a rectification application.
The Tribunal also held that the survival benefit of Rs. 2.25 lakhs was an exempted income under Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and referred the matter back to the AO for verification.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly upheld the appeal of Kartakeya Enterprises, a partnership firm, for the assessment year 2015-16. The ITAT found that the assessee had substantiated the claim of its expenses with documentary evidence. However, the ITAT sustained the disallowance of 50% towards petrol and maintenance expenses of the car.
The ITAT observed that the assessee had substantiated the claim of its expenses with corroborative documentary evidence and also noted that the ITO and the CIT(A) had not pointed out anything specific to justify the disallowances/additions made.
The Two-member bench comprising Saktijit Dey (Vice-President) Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) deleted the disallowances/additions made by the ITO and the CIT(A) for interest paid on loan, commission paid to Shri Rakesh Tiwari, brokerage paid to Shri Sumit Chitkara, and professional charges paid to Shri Rajiv Dutta and the ITAT sustained the disallowance of 50% towards petrol and maintenance expenses of car.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that issuance of cheque to associate concerns from OCC account cannot be construed as diversion of working capital loan Fund.
The bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Technical Member) observed that the ground of appeal filed by the revenue is devoid of merits and thus, inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A). Also, directed the Assessing Officer to delete additions made towards disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2016-17 to 2019-20.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench held that bad debts declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPS) before 01.04.2006 are allowed as deduction under Section 36(l)(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the two-member bench of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member) held that deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 36(1)(vii) Income Tax Act should be allowed since the same pertains to advances classified as NPA prior to 01.04.2006. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Mumbai Bench recently while deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer (AO) held that mismatch in contract receipts shown in profit and loss (P&L) account and Form 26AS reconciled by self-speaking documentary order.
It was observed by the tribunal that only because there was a mismatch between TDS certificate/26AS and the turnover/receipts shown by the assessee in its P&L account cannot be a sole basis for making addition in hands of assessee to bring the difference to tax. Moreover, the assessee has successfully established that the mismatch occurred due to inclusion of WCT/VAT/Service Tax in the bills and factum of deduction of TDS on the total bill amount.
After observing the facts and examining the documents, the two-member bench of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) deleted the addition and observed that mismatch in the contract receipts as per books of accounts and as per 26AS was reconciled by self-proving documents.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has made a ruling stating that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has the authority to initiate enhancement proceedings on their own accord if deemed necessary.
The two-member bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Technical Member) viewed that the CIT(A) did not travel outside his jurisdiction by issuing enhancement notice and such notice is not void, ab initio and thus, the subsequent conclusion of enhancement proceedings in favour of the assessee is valid on facts and in law. By upholding the decision of the CIT(A), the bench dismissed the grounds of the revenue.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the show cause notice (SCN) for imposing a penalty for non-payment of Customs Duty on the clearness of goods on the ground of Limitation.
The Bench observed that the department had failed to show that both the units have mutuality of interest as per the provisions of sub- clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of Rule 8/Rule 9 of Valuation Rules, and the extended period could not have been invoked and show-cause notice should not have been issued for a longer period.
The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed on the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Raipur Bench while upheld the revision order held that the share of substantial profit earned from sale of agricultural land to National Rural Development Authority (NRDA) is eligible to tax.
It was observed by the tribunal that the AO had failed to verify the maintainability of the assessee’s claim that the transaction of sale of land at Village: Baroda to NRDA was exempt from tax and in absence of any supporting material had summarily accepted assessee’s claim.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the two member bench of Ravish Sood,( Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia,(Accountant Member) observed that the order passed by the A.O under section 143(3) Income Tax Act as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench quashed the reopening assessment in respect of accommodation entry without providing proper approval under Section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the single member bench of C.M.Garg, (Judicial Member) quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
