The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that fee received towards live transmissions of cricket matches programs held in Australia is not royalty under India -Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement .Hence the bench deleted the addition made against the Cricket Australia.
It was observed by the tribunal that AO made addition in respect of license fee for live and non-live transmission qua Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd. on the ground that live transmission of sports events in the modern era is not merely a process of streaming event from the venue to the television set of the viewer.
After reviewing the facts the two member bench of Kul Bharat, (Judicial Member )and M.Balaganesh,( Accountant Member)held that license fees earned by the assessee from Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited pertaining to ‘live’ transmissions of the programmes i.cCricket matches held in Australia as not “Royalty” under the Income Tax Act as well as under the India – Australia Double Tax Avoidance Agreement.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the provision of gratuity after deduction of the actual gratuity charged to the profit in the profit/ loss account doesn’t attract disallowance under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) and Beena Pillai (Judicial member) was of the opinion that if the assessee has charged gross provision for gratuity to the profit as per profit & loss account, thereafter the assessee deducted actual gratuity payment of Rs.55,74,555/-, the assessee’s claim cannot be disallowed in principle. On the other hand, if the assessee has debited the actual payment of gratuity in the account provision for gratuity, then the payment of gratuity already gets subsumed, thereafter, the assessee cannot once again claim actual payment of gratuity in the return of income as it would amount to double deduction.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as there was no separate agreement between the Eshakthi and its non-resident US subsidiary for reimbursement of expenses.
The two-member Bench of Mahavir Singh, (Vice-President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, (Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(A) had merely gone by the fact that the ‘make available’ clause was not satisfied. However, considering the nature of services as enumerated in the remand report, ‘make available’ clause might not be even applicable for most of the services. The claim of the assessee hinged on the fact that the services were not technical in nature and the same were reimbursed on cost-to-cost basis. The Bench set aside the impugned order to the extent of disallowance.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Amritsar Bench held that reassessment should not be framed under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 if notice for search proceedings was issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer.
It was observed by the tribunal that search was also conducted separately at the residential premises of assessee and as such the assessee ought to have been issued notice under Section 153A Income Tax Act. Thus none of the conditions are satisfied in the case of the assessee, for the issue of notices under Section 153C Income Tax Act to the assessee in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2019-20 and hence, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, per se is bad in law.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Anikesh Banerjee, (Judicial Member) and Dr. M. L. Meena, (Accountant Member) held that reassessment should not be framed under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, if notice for search proceedings was issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench deleted the penalty order passed under section271(l)(c)/270A of Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 holding that reopening after 4 years in the absence of tangible material would amount to change of opinion only.
The two-member Bench of Waseem Ahmed, (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar, (Judicial Member) observed that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer had not showed that any new tangible material available on record and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment, when the same was reopened after four years period.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the allegation of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) that the assessee has under stated the revenue shown in Profit and Loss (P&L) account is due to tax being deducted on Value Added Tax (VAT) amount, thus quashed the revisionary order under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member observed that issues relating to revenue of the assessee for the relevant financial year were duly examined with reference to the books of accounts and response of the assessee during assessment proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench held that amenities provided to tenants of house property compute under the head of Income from House Property.Therefore the bench deleted the double addition made by the assessing officer and also deleted computing the income under the head ‘Profit and gains from business.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Sanjay Garg ( Judicial Member) and Dr. Manish Borad,( Accountant Member) held that amenities provided to tenants of house property compute under the head of Income from House Property.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that extraction of minerals from beach sand involve change in non-living physical object / article into a new and distinct object / article having different name and use, the same would amount to manufacture. Hence quashed the revisionary order and allowed deduction under Section 32 AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member relied on the decision of DCIT vs. M/s Indian Ocean Garnet Sand Company where the assessee was engaged in similar activity of separation of garnet sand from beach sand and claimed the same to be manufacturing process and it was held that extraction of minerals from beach sand involve change in non-living physical object / article into a new and distinct object / article having different name and use. Thus, the same would amount to manufacture.
The Raipur branch of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the revision order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds that the Assessing Officer neglected to confirm the nature and source of the income during the reassessment proceedings.
The Two-member bench comprising of Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) held that there was a gross failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to verify the nature and source of the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.43 lacs, which in itself had formed the very basis for reopening of the assessee’s case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) ITAT) has held that the receipt of interconnectivity utility charges (IUC) from Indian customers or end users could not be taxed as royalty or Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and also as per India-Spain Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
The two-member Bench of Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the decision in case of “Vodafone Idea Ltd and Vodafone South Ltd” and held that payments received by assessee towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers / end users could not be considered as Royalty / FTS to be brought to tax in India under Section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Income Tax Act and also as per DTAA.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while re-directing adjudication of an income tax appeal observed that the burden to prove that the large volume of cash deposit as a gift to a grandson during the demonetisation is not suspicious shall lies on the assessee.
A Single Bench of K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed it reasonable for the learned CIT(A) to entertain a doubt as to whether there was an occasion for Mr. Aleti Sanjeeva Reddy to possess that much of cash with him because it is unlikely that the same amount of Rs. 8 lakhs that was withdrawn six months earlier was kept idle without turning it in the business. However, no liability could be fastened on the likelihood or otherwise. Such a thing falls in the realm of verification of fact.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench deleted additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without detecting material to establish undisclosed transactions involving the sale /purchase of gold in cash outside books of accounts. There was no documentary evidence or material found by the lower authority to substantiate the transaction in the ledger account as pertaining to the assessee.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee, the two member bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President)and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer because the lower authority did not detect any material to establish undisclosed transactions involving sale/purchase of gold in cash outside books of accounts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench directed to compute addition towards 2% of profit on gold sold by assessee found during the course of search proceedings.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, (Accountant Member) directed the assessing officer to compute additions towards 2% of profit on Sale of Gold by assessee found out during the course of search proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench directed to compute addition towards 2% of profit on silver sold by assessee found during the course of search proceedings. The AO made additions under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and he added an amount of Rs.2,89,300/-.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the explanation of the assessee, the two member bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) directed the assessing officer to compute addition towards 2% of profit on sale of silver by the assessee found out during the course of search proceedings.
The Rajkot bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the revision order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), holding the non-invocation of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as an error in the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.
The Two Member Bench comprising of Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member observed that the AO, having not taxed the addition made on account of unexplained creditors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as per the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, had acted erroneously, causing prejudice to the Revenue.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was not justified in confirming the order of Assessing Officer (AO) in excluding the alleged additional income offered during the course of survey as business income and attracting the provisions under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consequently the charging, under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The Bench comprising of R.S. Syal, Vice President and S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member observed that the assessee had explained the difference of Rs.37,00,000/- as stock purchased on high demand during the marriage seasons and bills will be received late. Therefore, it was concluded that the excess stock as found during the course of survey is nothing but business income flowing from assessee’s regular business.
The Indore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the deduction on actual cost is allowable before the imposition of tax on the entire amount received from the sale of land.
The Two-member bench comprising of Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial member) and B.M. Biyani (Accountant member) held that if the land is sold for Rs. 1,28,50,000/- the department cannot tax the entire sum of Rs. 1,28,50,000/- as income of assessee; the department has to allow deduction of actual cost incurred by assessee since the impugned land actually belonged to RLM once upon a time and the assessee purchased from RLM and therefore certainly incurred cost whatever amount may be.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the cancellation of registration of Trust under Section 12 AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 due to failure of assessee to respond to the notices of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] regarding genuiness of activities is not in the interest of justice, thus ordered for de novo consideration.
The Two member Bench comprising of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and G. D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member observed that It has to be appreciated that the purpose of the provisions for registration of trust under Section 12AB and granting of recognition under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, derives their spirit from the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal held that as no method has been applied by the TPO or DRP to bench-mark these transactions, the issue be remitted back to TPO.
Considering the facts, the two member bench consisting of Rajpal Yadav(vice president) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant member) remitted the issue back to the file of TPO to adjudicate upon this issue by taking into consideration the evidence placed on record by the assessee. Assessee is at liberty to furnish any further details to substantiate its claim. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Jodhpur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that when the interest is not received no disallowance can be made.
The two member bench consisting of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant member) held that when the interest is not received, no disallowance can be made. The assessee was noted having sufficient funds which were interest free and therefore, the bench vacated the disallowance of Rs. 13,23,694/-.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai bench held that loss on forward exchange contracts of the export business are business losses not speculative losses under Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Celebrity Fashions Ltd. wherein it was held that Loss on Forward Exchange Contracts of export business are business losses. Therefore the bench upheld the decision of the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai bench held that the retained amount from security deposit of leased housing property due to the cancellation of lease deed is assessable under the head ‘Income from House Property”.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member) held that retained amount from security deposit of leased housing property due to the cancellation of lease deed is assessable under the head ‘Income from House Property”.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that as per Clause (q) to sub-section (1) of Section 246A an order imposing penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act finds place in the orders which are appealable before the CIT(A).
The two member bench consisting of Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) and Ravish Sood (Judicial member) he that the penalty imposed by the A.O vide his order passed under section.270A of the Act dated 02.03.2020 clearly falls within the realm of the orders appealable before the CIT(Appeals) under section 246A of the Act, therefore, the dismissal of the appeal of the present assessee company by taking a view to the contrary by the CIT(Appeals) cannot be sustained. The bench, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to his file with a direction to him dispose off the appeal afresh. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Information not being provided in prescribed format and duly signed by CA gives AO authority to use judicious approach and call for confirmation under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench consisting of Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbha (Accountant member) and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial member) held that the information was not in the prescribed format and duly signed by the Chartered Accountant. The AR for the assessee fairly submitted that he will substantiate the claim by filing proper evidence and the AO was directed to use judicious approach and if require may call for the confirmation under Section 133(6) with these observation. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no addition shall be imposed on the assessee when the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the payment made towards the amenities included in the basic cost of the flat.
The Two-member bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial member) and Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant member) held that the Assessing Officer while making the addition had not considered the payments made on account of various amenities like electricity connection, water connection, common facilities of various amenities provider by the builder/developer.
The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition holding that mere non-accounting of expired stocks part of opening stock would not have any impact on profitability.
The two member Bench of A.D.Jain, (Vice President) and Vikram Singh Yadav, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal observing that mere non- accounting of the expired stock as part of the opening stock wouldn’t have any impact on the profitability so declared by the assessee for the reason that such expired stock would again form part of the closing stock at the end of the financial year. The Bench further held that “Similarly, whether such stock has been destroyed or returned will not have any impact on the profitability so declared and what efforts have been taken by the assessee or should have been taken by the assessee are not relevant consideration for the reason that the same doesn’t affect the profitability so declared by the assessee as the assessee has not claimed any loss on account of writing off of such expired stock which otherwise it is entitled to.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the capital gain deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be allowable in the year of handing over of possession not in the year of payment of consideration.
The Division Bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice-President) and Girish Agrawal, (Accountant Member) Referring to the decision arrived in Bastimal K. Jain vs. ITO allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that “deduction under Section 54 was rightly allowed because of the purchase of new property, what is relevant is “handing over of possession” and not “payment of consideration”.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 would apply to undisclosed income which was declared during the survey proceedings.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the AO should have made requisite enquiries with regards to applicability of provisions of Section 269ST read with Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, while framing the assessment.
The Bench further observed that in the instant case, evidently, no enquiries with regards to applicability of Section 269ST read with Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, were made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, when evidently it was within the knowledge of the AO that the aforesaid amount was received by the assessee firm in cash, outside the books of accounts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore bench held that no Tax Deduction at source (TDS) shall be done in respect of the perquisite value of unfurnished accommodation provided by Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to its employees.
The tribunal finally agreed with the contentions of assessee representative that assessee falls under S.No.1 of the table under Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and therefore no TDS has to be deducted by the assessee on the perquisite value of the unfurnished accommodation provided by assessee to its employees. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that if a person fails to furnish return of income then the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income.
The two member bench consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice president) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) held that The assessee has remained non-cooperative in all the proceedings. The cited case law of Hyderabad Tribunal bench supports the case of the revenue wherein similar facts exist. The bench, in para-23 of the order, considered Explanation-3 to Section 271(1)(c) which provides that if a person fails to furnish return of income then the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed there is no rebuttal to the contention of the assessee that the market value of the land was less than the stamp duty value, thereby directing to delete the impugned additions.
The two member bench consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) held that they do not find justification on the part of the lower authorities in making/confirming the impugned additions and the same were accordingly ordered to be deleted. Thus the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
