The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that Activities of the trust cannot be the deciding factor while granting registration.
The two bench members consisting of Ravidh Sood and Arun Khodpia held that the rejection of application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(E) was an erroneous application of law, thus, cannot sustain, accordingly quashed the same and directed to grant registration to the assessee as per law. Thus, the appeal was allowed.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that a loss springing up in subsequent year wouldn’t justify non accounting of income during the year the same had accrued.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that a loss springing up in subsequent year wouldn’t justify non accounting of income during the year the same had accrued.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Central Processing Centre (CPC) was not within its jurisdiction to disallow a deduction claimed by a West Bengal cooperative society under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-Member Bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member) held that the CPC was not within its jurisdiction to make any such prima facie adjustment disallowing the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, since such power was given to the CPC with effect from
01.04.2021 The Tribunal also held that the assessee had filed the return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act and appeal filed by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act at Rs. 1,82,65,272/-.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench while deleting disallowance of interest held that investment made by the assessee company from its own interest free funds.
It was observed by the tribunal that assessee had sufficient surplus funds and had raised capital during the year by issuance of shares. Thus, merely because the assessee had also raised loans or paid interest against loans that does not justify the disallowance.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the single member bench of G. S. Pannu,( president ) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commercial Income Tax held that if interest free own funds are available with the assessee or exceeds investment, investment would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own fund.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that LIBOR is appropriate benchmarking rate for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) on outbound loan transactions. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal.
It was observed by the tribunal that ALP rate of interest in case of loans advanced to Associate Enterprises would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received /consumed.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a single member bench of Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) upheld the loan to foreign AE benchmarked on the basis of LIBOR.
The Patna High Court while dismissing the appeal against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has held that four years is a reasonable time of limitation in the absence of limitation provided in statute for an order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
He established principle is that, if the Revenue has not challenged a declaration of law laid down by a High Court and accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause.
Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy answered the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and reject the appeals filed by the Revenue.
In a significant case, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside the extended period of limitation since the revenue fails to prove unjust enrichment on sanctioned erroneous refund of excise duty.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani while dismissing the petition observed that the revenue has also failed to make out a case of unjust enrichment having failed to show how the respondent has benefited by such purported erroneous refund sanctioned in its favour by the Competent Authority.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal of a company, Icenet Net Ltd., and held that the internet expenses and labour charges incurred by the company were allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal observed that the internet expenses were incurred in the course of business and that the labour charges were necessary for the maintenance of the corporate status of the company. The authority also found that the provisions of Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act were not applicable in this case.
A Single member bench, comprising of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence on record. As a result, the bench granted the appeal filed by the assessee, nullified the Assessing Officer’s order, and granted the relief sought by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that no addition could be made in hands of assessee based on the book of another firm.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the single member bench of G. S. Pannu ( president ) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of the Rama traders vs. First ITO observed that no addition could be made, on the basis of presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchase made by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench directed the payment of Rupees 5000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund due to non -compliance of income tax proceedings before lower authorities.
It was observed by the tribunal that the assessee is a non-compliant of the Income-tax proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the bench imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee and which should be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two-member bench of Om Prakash Kant, (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal, (Judicial Member) restored the issue in dispute in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee on merit.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a cross objection filed by ICICI Bank for being filed late and held that taxpayers must file cross-objections within the time limit prescribed by law and that any cross-objections that are filed after the time limit will be dismissed.
The Two Member Bench, consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member), upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to disallow expenses from business income. The bench affirmed this decision and rejected the revenue’s appeal, stating that the reworking of deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act was not supported. The Tribunal also agreed with the decision and dismissed the appeal of revenue, stating that interest under section 234D should be calculated up to the original assessment order date and dismissed the assessee’s cross-objection as time-barred, stating that the delay of 14 years and 30 days was not condoned.
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the District Mining Officer is under statutory obligation to collect tax at source (TCS) on the compounding fee received from illegal miners even in the absence of a valid lease or licence of mines.
The ITAT bench further held that, as per Section 206C, the assessee was under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease-holders, and it was not restricted only to royalty.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that NRI serving outside India is eligible for DTAA benifit under Article 15(1) of India Morocco DTAA.
The two bench member consisting of Sonjay Sarma (Judicial member) and DR. Manish Board (Accountant member) held that Assessing Officer shall give sufficient opportunity to the assessee to show that the said documents are towards the tax paid in Morocco on the income from salary received for performing his duties for the employee M/s. Dell International Private Limited. And In case the Assessing Officer is satisfied with these documents, necessary relief may be granted to the assessee by not taxing the alleged salary income. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no modification is necessitated on import documents for minor increase or decrease in weight than import invoice calculated based on theoretical weight is allowable.
The two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar, Member (Technical) held that “no value can be enhanced based on the weight variation since it was obvious that when a theoretical weight is taken by adopting a formula the same will never be matching exactly with the physical weight of the goods. Therefore, due to this minor increase or decrease in the weight valuation cannot be varied.” While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned demand.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench while allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80JJAA of Income Tax Act, 1961 held that original return of income was filed by the assessee before the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
It was observed by the tribunal that assessee has filed its original return of income for the A.Y.2020-2021 on 15.02.2021 and subsequently assessee has filed the revised return of income which the Centralized Processing Centre has considered as original return of income.It was observed by them that assessee has filed the return of income belatedly.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the single member bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee has filed the original return of income before the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act.
The bench observed that it was clear that the after evaluation of documentary evidence including agreement with the Noida Authority, the CIT(A) noted that the interest claimed by the assessee neither related to any offence or arising out of any prohibition in law or any infraction of law but related to the delay in payment for the lease amount to the Noida Authority and thus parable as per the agreement
The two-member bench consisting of C.M. Garg (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) inclined to agree with the conclusion of the CIT(A), where the authority directed the AO not to reduce the amount of interest from the work in progress and allow the same to be capitalized under the project expenses. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessing officer passed the order without complying with the mandatory requirement, and thus set aside the order of CIT(A) and allowed additional ground of appeal.
The two bench members consisting of Aby T Varkey (Judicial member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) held that the assessing officer passed the order dated 29.03.2016 under Section 143(3) and 144C(1) without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, following the aforesaid decision the said order is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Transfer pricing adjustment is to be restricted to international transaction.
In view of the judicial precedents, the two-member bench consisting of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) allowed the appeal.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed readjudication for disallowing the 2/3rd of Repair and Maintenance Expenditure as Capital Expenditure for Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission by Assessing Officer (AO).
The two-member bench consisting of Arun Khodpia (Judicial member) and Ravish Sood (Accountant member) restored the matter to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication qua the admissibility of the assessee’s claim for deduction of repair and maintenance expenses. Thus, the Ground of appeal raised by the assessee company was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition on grounds of Assessing Officer (AO) failed to show conclusive proof that the assessee being a benamidar of registered society.
The two-member bench, with Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) found no flaws in the perspective adopted by the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, they upheld the observations that led to the removal of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, amounting to unexplained bank deposits of Rs. 1,24,30,799/- and the interest accrued on those deposits, which amounted to Rs. 1,78,210/-.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee grossly failed in discharging the initial burden, thus relevant provisions applied by the Assessing Officer (AO) are not applicable.
The tribunal observed that the assessee has simply filed documents but has not given any explanation to the adverse observations in respect of the bank statements. Even the CIT(A) ignored the specific findings of the AO that cash were deposited immediately before issuing the cheque Considering the facts of the case in totality the tribunal viewed that the assessee grossly failed in discharging the initial burden.
The two bench members consisting of N. K. Billaya (Accountant member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) set aside the findings of the CIT(A) restore and that of the AO. All the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act are confirmed grounds.
The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that mere suspicion is not enough for the Income Tax Department (ITD) to make additions to a taxpayer’s income.
A Single Member Bench Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and found that the assessee had met his burden of proof and that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that Payments made in consideration of architectural design could not be classified as royalty under Article 12(3) of India Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The two-member bench consisting of G.S. Pannu (president) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) after considering the facts of the assessee’s case in the light of the decisions in the case of Gera Developments P. Ltd. and Devi Ashmore India Ltd. held that payments made to the assessee in consideration of architectural design services could not be classified as royalty under Article 12(3) of IndiaSingapore DTAA. Hence, the tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench held that expenses incurred for repairing machines for the running of petrol pump business are revenue in nature.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd observed that “There is no new asset which has been created giving benefit of enduring nature”
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the addition of professional receipts as undisclosed income is not tenable.
The bench consisting of Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial member) held the assessee has adopted provisions of section 44AD of the Income Tax Act which is permissible and the addition of professional receipts as undisclosed income Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not tenable. Accordingly, the bench set aside the order of the CIT(A) and also directed the assessing officer to delete the addition. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench held that no income tax on partners for share in profit of partnership firm. Therefore the bench deleted the addition made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the two member bench of Om Prakash Kant, (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal, (Judicial Member) deleted the addition and held that share of profit from the partnership firm was always exempt in the hands of the partners irrespective of payment taxes by the partnership firm.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench Ruled that the Tax Deduction at Source should be allowed in a year under consideration for which such income is assessable.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of Gagan Goyal, (Accountant Member) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) held that as per Rule 37BA (3) (i) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 that the benefit of TDS is to be given for the assessment year for which the corresponding income is assessable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench deleted the 5% disallowance made by the assessing officer out of repair and maintenance expenses claimed under the sanitation segment .
It was observed by the tribunal that during the course of assessment proceedings itself the assessee has explained that repairs and maintenance expenses were incurred by it on its own vehicles and not on hired vehicles. Further the explanation of the assessee was supported by bills/vouchers.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) deleted the 5% disallowance out of repair and maintenance expenses claimed under sanitation segment.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the expenses incurred for repair and maintenance of damaged assets on fire are capital expenditure. Hence, the bench upholds the disallowance made by the assessing officer.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the two member bench of G.S.Pannu (President) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) upheld the disallowance of expenses incurred for repair and maintenance of damaged assets on fire and held as it was capital in nature.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Income Tax is not leviable on award received on the compulsory acquisition of the agricultural land of partnership firm.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties a Single bench of Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) held that Income Tax is not leviable on award received on the compulsory acquisition of the agricultural land of partnership firm
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that repairs and maintenance expenses of the transport segment was incurred by its own vehicles not on hired vehicles. Hence, the bench deleted the 20% ad hoc disallowance made by the assessing officer.
It was observed by the tribunal that during the course of assessment proceedings itself the assessee has explained that repairs and maintenance expenses were incurred by it on its own vehicles and not on hired vehicles. Further, the explanation of the assessee was supported by bills/vouchers.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) deleted 20% adhoc disallowance made on expenses incurred for repairs and maintenance under Transport segment using owned vehicles.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of cash received by a minor grandson on birthday during search proceedings.
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) deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of Income Tax Act on account of cash received by a minor grandson on birthday during search proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench held that no addition could be made on basis of notional interest due to failure to receive Interest for the loan advanced by the assessee finance company.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both partiesz the two member bench of Rajpal Yadav, (Vice-President) and Rajesh Kumar,, (Accountant Member) observed that It is just a normal business incident and in the absence of any interest income, the notional interest income could not be estimated for making the disallowance out of interest expenditure.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest earned on surplus grants should not be taxed as income.
The Two Member Bench Comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) held that “In view of the above, the aforestated decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, will clearly apply to the present case and the interest received on the surplus funds by the assessee, therefore, cannot be treated as income of the assessee. The addition therefore made to the income of the assessee by treating the interest on surplus funds as income of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,54,85,315/- is directed to be deleted.”
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that receipts for advisory services are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) unless they result in the transfer of technical knowledge and clarifies the scope of FTS under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and it is likely to have implications for other taxpayers who are engaged in the provision of advisory services to their associated enterprises.
The tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee to the Indian AE are merely for enabling and assisting the Indian AE in making the correct decisions on certain aspects as specifically provided under the group service agreement. Such rendition of services does not result in the transfer of technical knowledge, know-how, skill, etc. to the Indian AE. Therefore, the ‘make available’ condition provided under Article 13(4)(c) remains non-compliant. That being the position, the receipts would not fall within the definition of FTS as provided under Article 13(4) of India – UK DTAA.
The Delhi High Court confirmed penalty of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on the ground of enhancement of disallowance under Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 made voluntarily.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia noted that “Thus, given the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the enhancement of disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act carried out by the respondent/assessee was not voluntarily. Thus, for the forgoing reasons, we are not inclined to interdict the decision of the Tribunal. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.”
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Contact/ Professional Receipts reflected in the Form 26AS shall be Taxed at 8% under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Single bench of Pawan Singh (Judicial member) found merits in the submissions of the AssesseeRepresentative for the assessee that only income component is to be brought to tax and not the entire receipt. Also, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to tax all the receipts contract, professional receipt shown in Form-26 AS at the rate of 8% and allow the benefit of proviso to Section 44AD(2) of Income Tax as existed during AY-2011-12.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench held that the issue of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening of assessment should not be made without reasonable belief.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of Rajpal Yadav, (Vice-President) and Rajesh Kumar, (Accountant Member) held that there is no reasonable belief to issue notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for reopening Assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench upheld the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of failure to prove long term capital loss arises from the sale of shares of the company.
It was observed by the tribunal that the assessee did not produce any evidence for claim of LTCL was produced during the assessment proceedings as well as before CIT(A). Thus also considering the submission of the assessee that when the business operation of the assessee is closed the assessee is not in a position to submit the evidence.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a single member bench of Suchitra Kamble, (Judicial Member) determined that claim of LTCL would not be proved by the assessee before any of the authorities.
The Ahemdabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the amount of refund granted to the assessee, first, has to be adjusted against the interest payable to the assessee and thus entitled to additional compensation for delay in issuing refund.
The two-member bench consisting of Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member) held that the amount of refund granted to the assessee, first, has to be adjusted against the interest payable to the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. Considering the fact that the amount of refund issued to the assessee for Rs. Rs. 75,00,281/- was first to be adjusted against the interest of Rs. 22,12,583/- then refund of principal amount.
Thus, the tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and held that the assessee is entitled to additional compensation of interest under section 244A of the Act on account of delay in the issue of refund. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
