The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that NBFC being financial company tried to enter in to banking business and for this purpose the assessee incurred expenditure on preparation of a report on transformation of company from financial institution to banking company, which was not beyond the scope of working.
The two bench member consisting of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) and Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) held that the assessee had incurred expenditure for the purpose of expansion of its business from financial activities to banking activities and thus the same was for the purpose of business of assessee and thus allowable.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that there is no basis with the PCIT to hold that the facts relating to the transaction in sale of land were indicative of the same being in the nature of adventure in the nature of trade.
The two member bench consisting of Madhumita Roy (Judicial member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant member) held that, in the absence of any finding of error in the order of the Assessing Officer allowing the assessee’s claim of gains earned from sale of land as being in the nature of capital gains, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act should not be levied if the assessee bonafide revised and added the interest income.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) directed AO to deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and held that the interest income declared in revised return does not amount to concealment of income. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that transfer pricing adjustment should not be made on account of Intra -Group Services available from Associate Enterprise (AE) for manufacturing and trading services, if the assessee proved the same with documentary evidence.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee has properly demonstrated objective analysis of each of the Intragroup services rendered with document evidence. Hence, transfer pricing adjustment should not be made on account of Intra-Group Services available from Associate Enterprises(AE) for manufacturing and trading service , if the assessee proves the same with documentary evidence.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed re-adjudication as the disallowance of interest on delayed Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deposit and service tax was without bifurcation
The two-member Bench of Manish Borad, (Accountant Member) Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) observed that the tribunal while considering the appeal had already deleted the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act and also deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench upheld the disallowance made by the lower authority towards the delayed remittance of employees contribution by reason of mis-utilization of funds.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) held that assessee is not entitled for claim of deduction qua the amount deposited towards employees contribution on account of provident fund / ESI after due date prescribed under the respective Act.
The Raipur Bench of Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed re-adjudication as penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act,1961 would not be leviable when audit has been completed within a reasonable time by the appointment of auditors by the regulatory authority.
The two-member Bench of Ravish Sood, (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia, (Accountant Member) observed that there was nothing on the part of assessee which made assessee responsible for the delay. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed restoring the issue to the files of AO to verify the documents and accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations herein either enforce or vacate the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act in the present case.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the addition could not be deleted merely for mentioning Section 68 instead of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 when the cash deposit of Rs.49,000/-had been found each time in the bank account of assessee.
The two-member Bench of N. K. Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar Us, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that “The logic behind deposit of cash of Rs. 49,000/- each time in the bank account was also not justified. To sum up, the factual matrix is not commensurate with human probability. On such unbelievable facts the additions cannot be deleted merely on technical ground that the AO mentioned section 68 instead of section 69 of the Act.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) he that CIT(A) was unjustified in denying right to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act on grounds of Government auditor failing to give audit report on time.
The single member bench consisting of Suchritra Kamble held that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not right in disallowing the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act to the assessee only on the ground of delay in filing the return. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,00,000 to its bank account during demonetization period thus upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Two member Bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member held that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- to its bank account during demonetization period and hence no addition can be made. The Tribunal upheld the decision of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Adoption of value by AO on the date of transfer being hypothetical makes the addition non tenable under section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench consisting of Astha Chandra (Judicial member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) held that the lower authorities have been completely wrong in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,07,66,220/- on account of increase in sale consideration of shares, which needs to be deleted. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that capital gain exemption under Section 54F should be available if the assessee purchased property outside India prior to the amendment in Finance Act, 2014.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) and N. K. Choudhry (Judicial Member) held that capital gain exemption under Section 54F should be available even if the assessee purchased property outside India prior to the amendment in Finance Act 2014. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) he that alleged information from other officer of the dept. has to be reckoned as abstract, ba and bare one and thus has no rational probative value and could not be acted upon by the AO under law.
The two member bench consisting of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) he that they find overwhelming potency in the plea of the assessee that reasons recorded and approval granted thereon under Section 151 do not meet the requirement of law at all and thus the issuance of notice under Section 148 based on cryptic and nondescript reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the CIT that too on a narrow compass under Section 151 is not permissible in law. Thus the order was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), held that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit to its bank account during demonetization period thus no income tax addition can be made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member noted that the sole basis for making addition in the hands of assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act taken by the AO was that the cash balance is available was Rs. 7,055 and the assessee had deposited cash amount of Rs. 1,24,50,000 post demonetization period.
It was observed that the financial statements of assessee clearly show that the assessee was consistently maintaining huge cash balance as per his business prudence and there was opening cash balance as well as huge cash withdrawals from 01.04.2016 till declaration of demonetization period amounting to Rs. 2,63,10,000/-which are much higher than the amounts of Rs. 1,24,50,000/- i.e. cash deposited by the assessee to its bank account during pre & post demonetization period.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the reopening of assessment after 4 years with the approval of joint commissioner was invalid.
The two-member Bench of Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) allowed the cross objection of the assessee dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue referring to the decision in Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT that as per provisions of Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner was a prerequisite for issuance of a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax after expiry of four years was liable to be seaside.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) he that AO cannot treat surplus as capital gain without giving benefit of indexation.
The two bench member consisting of M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) he that the AO erred in treating the surplus to be short term capital gain without giving benefit of indexation, therefore the bench directed the AO to re-compute gain, if any after giving benefit of indexation as provided under law and decide the issue in the light of judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs Vembhu Vidyanathan. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the moulds owned by Philips India as a part of the block assets for the purpose of business are entitled to depreciation at 30%.
The Two-member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that it is immaterial whether the plastic /rubber moulds were used in the factory premises of the assessee or vendors. Prime requirement is that moulds should be owned by the assessee, the same should be part of block assets shown by the assessee and these were put to use for the purpose of business of the assessee and the three requisite conditions have been fulfilled by the assessee in the present case and thus it is entitled to claim depreciation at 30%.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), held that the cash deposited out of sales cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act once the sales are not disputed by the revenue.
The Bench comprising of C.M. Garg, Judicial Member and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member observed that as long as existence of stocks with the assessee is not doubted by the AO and cash sales made by the assessee is accepted by the AO, the entire cash deposits made in the sum of Rs 3,43,50,000 stands duly explained and there is no case for making any addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the short-term capital gain disposed off within a short span of time will not justify the gain to be treated as business income.
The Two-member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that the assessee has purchased shares and disposed of them within a short span of time will not justify the gain to be treated as business income while the same was shown in the investment portfolio in the books of the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted in the hands of the transferor company shall belong to the transferrer company when the amalgamation scheme is approved by the High Court.
The Two-member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) examined the Form 26AS of the amalgamating companies and found that TDS is deducted in the name of transferee companies but that is immaterial when the scheme is approved by the High Court as post the appointed date, the TDS deducted in the hands of the transferor company shall belong to the transferee company.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the re-assessment without issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was void.
The two-member Bench of Ramakanta Panda, (Vice President) and K.Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member)dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that , “In this case, it’s not the case of the assessee that there was any assessment under section 143(3) or section 147 of the Act earlier. Then the case of the assessee falls not under section 151(1), but it falls under section 151(2) of the Act, in which case the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner is sufficient. Assessee has no good case on this point.”
The New Delhi bench of ITAT quashed the appeal by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), (the appellant) for levying Income tax from Aruna Chandhok, (the respondent) for the bonus shares she received, as per section 56(2)(vii)(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench consisting of M.Balganesh (Accountant Member) and Anubhava Sharma (Judicial Member) after hearing the both sides held the CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the contentions of Aruna Chandhok and granted relief to her. The appeal was hence dismissed by the Tribunal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that taxability of date processing fees paid by assessee to its overseas branch could not be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as per India France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA).
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member) held that payment made by the assessee to Singapore branch cannot be treated as FTS. Therefore, the above ground raised by the assessee was allowed the tribunal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition as the assessee had failed to produce confirmation letter and promotion expenses incurred towards the medicine agency.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed the assessee holding that the assessee in the instant facts, had not been able to produce any supporting evidence with respect to promotion expenses incurred towards “Medicine Agency, and no reply / confirmation from the aforesaid party had been received.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that the rate of tax applicable to domestic banking companies is not the same as foreign banking companies. Tax levied at a higher rate in the case of a foreign company is not to be regarded as a violation of the non-discrimination clause.
Referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04- 1962 as per which the higher tax rate in case of foreign company, should not be regarded as violation of nondiscrimination clause. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S,(Accountant Member ) and Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member)held that tax levied at a higher rate in the case of a foreign company is not to be regarded as a violation of the non-discrimination clause. There fore rate of tax applicable to domestic banking companies is not the same as foreign banking companies
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directed to deposit cost of Rs 25,000/- in Prime Minister Relief Fund (PMRF) due to non-compliance behavior of assessee before lower authorities during the appellate proceedings
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Waseem Ahmed ,(Accountant Member ) and T.R. Senthil Kumar, (Judicial Member) directed to deposit cost of Rs 25,000/- in Prime Minister Relief Fund (PMRF) due to non-compliance behavior of assessee before lower authorities during the appellate proceedings . Sanjay Deshmukh,counsel appeared for the revenue and Djaran V Gandhi appeared for assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that the interest amount paid by the Indian Branch to Foreign Head office was not taxable in India under India France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA).
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) held that interest paid by the Indian branch/PE to the head office/GE is not taxable in India.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directed readjudication in respect of treatment of legal cost incurred by Hindustan Unilever on merger of erstwhile Industrial Perfumes Limited.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Chandra Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) observed that expenditure as per the provisions of Section 35DD of the Income Tax Act is required to be examined by the A.O on the basis of relevant material after providing opportunity to the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the speculative losses are not eligible for set off against the non-speculation business income.
The Two-member bench comprising of Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial member) held that no documentary evidence or explanation has been given by the assessee to controvert the finding of the lower authorities.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that mere wrong claim by itself would not ipso facto invite the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, if bona fides of assessee’s actions were beyond the reasonable doubt.
The two-member Bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) and Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) observed that the imposition of penalty had flown from the additions/disallowances as listed in the preceding paragraph. Two of such disallowances/additions stood deleted in the quantum proceedings and therefore, the very basis for imposition of penalty would not survive any more.
The Bench observed that the amalgamation had taken place resulting in the stationery becoming unusable and obsolete and bona fides of the losses claimed were sufficiently proved and onus that lay upon the assessee had been primarily discharged on the parameters of penalty proceedings.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed higher depreciation to office electronic fittings on failure to distinguish between the electric fitting installed in factory and office premises.
The two-member Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee aside on this issue and directing the assessing officer to reverse the disallowance holding that the Assessing Officer himself had accepted the higher claim of 15% in Assessment Year 2014-15 and palpable merit had been found in the plea of the assessee towards correctness of higher depreciation claimed on electric fittings installed at the factory premises.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directs readjudication related to the action of Assessing Officer for increasing the value of closing stock of the assessee during the assessment proceedings by an amount being unutilised Modvat.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Chandra Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) directed readjudication related to the action of Assessing Officer for increasing the value of closing stock of the assessee during the assessment proceedings by an amount being unutilised Modvat.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax department as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted the application filed by the assessee under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016.
The two-member Bench of N . K . Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S., (Judicial Member) considering the fact that the NCLT in IB-408 (ND-2022) vide order dated 09/06/2023 had declared moratorium consequently, as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, it was order to prescribe the registration of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgement decree or order in any court of law Tribunal arbitration, penal or other authorities.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that deduction allowable on warranty expenses of motor vehicles was ascertained based on the actual expenses incurred on settlement of warranty schemes in earlier years.
The tribunal observed that provision made by the assessee was ascertained based on the actual expenses incurred on settlement of warranty schemes in earlier years and was based on the scientific exercise of making provision for warranty clauses for each and every vehicle sold on a regular basis year on year.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of G.S. Pannu, (President) and Sandeep Singh Karhai (Judicial Member) upheld the deletion of disallowance made on account of provision for warranty. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that determination of income of assessee on certain estimate was not sufficient to constitute concealed income. Hence, the bench deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) held that determination of income of assessee on certain estimates was not sufficient to support the contention that the assessee had concealed his income. Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the deeming provision of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 doesn’t apply when the assessee provides a proper explanation regarding the unrecorded sale.
The Two-member bench comprising of Aakash Deep Jain (Vice-President) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant member) held that the name of the person, the amount receivables, date, etc has been duly recorded in the diary, thus, the statement of the assessee duly stand corroborated by the contents of the diary so found during the course of survey.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
