This annual digest analyzes all the ITAT stories published in 2023 at taxscan.in
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee was deprived of the justice to be decided the merits of the registration on account of the shortage of timeto appear before the authorities to furnish genuiness of activities carried out by the trust.
The Bench comprising of Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member observed that Dr. Shiven Bhandari, Director didn’t appear before the CIT(E) and therefore, CIT(E) could not decide the issue about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT (E) to decide the dispute independently in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the mere transfer of real estate and construction business is not a case of succession of the firm by a company rather a simple case of transfer of a certain line of business on slump sale basis. Thus the assessee is a transferee and paid the sale consideration and hence, it could not be subjected to any capital gains.
The Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member held that the firm has merely transferred its real estate and construction business and this is not a case of succession of the firm by a company rather a simple case of transfer of a certain line of business on slump sale basis. The assessee is a transferee and paid the sale consideration and hence, it could not be subjected to any capital gains. Therefore, notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act was invalid and no fault could be found in the impugned order of CIT(A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, while upholding the addition made by the assessing officer, observed that the assessee failed to submit relevant information to determine the actual rent on an unfurnished flat based on the value of furniture and fittings of furnished flats.
After considering the facts submitted and the circumstances, the two-member bench of S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) held that the assessee failed to submit relevant information to determine the Actual Rent on Unfurnished Flat based on the value of Furniture and Fittings of Furnished Flats. Therefore, the bench confirmed the addition and dismissed the ground of the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jodhpur held that no addition could be made for the delay in filing Form No. 10 within the due date of the Income Tax Return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it has been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption).
After considering the facts submitted and the circumstances, the two-member bench of DR. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) held that no addition could be made for the delay in filing Form No. 10 within the due date of the Income Tax Return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, as it has been condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench, while directing readjudication, observed that the assessee had failed to produce the books of accounts during the assessment proceedings due to a communication gap between the assessee’s representative and the company.
After considering the facts submitted and the circumstances, the two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and G.S. Pannu (President) allowed the additional evidence and directed readjudication in respect of the evidence.
The Raipur Bench of Income Tax appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that on perusal of the statement of working and the supporting bank statements it is observed that the Home Loan of Rs. 69,00,000/- from HDFC Bank is divided equally between the co-owners but was not supported with any evidence, hence restored the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) for readjudication .
The Bench comprising of Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member observed that on perusal of the said statement of working and the supporting bank statements it is observed that the Home Loan of Rs. 69,00,000/- from HDFC Bank is divided equally between the co-owners but was not supported with any evidence. And further ordered that if assessee fails to comply with during the set aside assessment proceedings, AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. Hence appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee not having any reasonable cause for accepting the consideration, which is more than Rs.20,000/- by way of cash makes the appeal having no merit.
The two member bench consisting of R.K Panda (Vice President) and Laliet Kumar (Judicial member) held that the assessee not having any reasonable cause for accepting the consideration, which is more than Rs.20,000/-by way of cash and in view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that the Arm’s Length Price of the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses could not be taken as “NIL” for determining transfer pricing.
Furthermore, it provided Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) in the form of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and Performance Share Units (PSUs) to those eligible under the equity compensation plan for its group entity. After considering the facts submitted and circumstances, the two-member bench of S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) held that the ALP of the ESOP Expenses cannot be taken as ‘Nil’.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Act Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that land sold by assessee is agricultural Land and did not qualify as “capital asset” in terms of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act,1961 . The claim of the assessee to the entire capital gain earned on these piece of land amounting to Rs.3,56,70,539/-, as not being liable to tax.
The Bench comprising of Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judicial Member observed that the land sold by the assessee, whether agricultural land or not, so as to determine its qualification as a “capital asset” in terms of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, and thus facilitate finding whether capital gain earned thereon is taxable or not in terms of the provisions of law in this
The Tribunal held that the impugned land did not qualify as “capital asset” in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The claim of the assessee to the entire capital gain earned on these piece of land amounting to Rs.3,56,70,539/-, as not being liable to tax is in accordance with law and thus set aside the impugned order passed by AO and confirmed by CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Court has taken significant action to rectify an issue concerning the delay in appeals that were previously dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Delhi High Court. The ITAT had rejected these appeals primarily due to a delay of 246 days, and the absence of any acceptable justification for condoning this delay.
As a result, the Court set aside the order issued by the ITAT on 16.02.2018, as well as the decisions of the High Court dated 06.08.2018 and 01082018. Consequently, the matters have been reinstated and transferred back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for a thorough reconsideration of their merits. However, this restoration is contingent on the appellant paying a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent. This significant decision rectifies the previous dismissal, ensuring a fair chance for the appellant to present their case and be heard on the merits of the appeals.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the matter be remitted to the file of the AO with a direction to pass the assessment order afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The single member bench consisting of R.S. Syal was of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the AO with a direction to pass the assessment order afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of his case in the fresh assessment. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the director being not beneficiary could not be the assignee under keyman insurance policy.
The two-member Bench of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) observed that the company JMD had shown the premium payments as its investments. Further, the difference between the accumulated value of investments and the maturity amount has been declared by the above said company as its gains, meaning thereby, the assessee has only acted as conduit in collecting the maturity proceeds and remitting it to the company.
The Bench observed that, the only apprehension of PCIT was that the assessee could not have claimed deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, if the assessee was the assignee. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that PCIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings as JMD Auto India P Ltd was the beneficiary and not the assessee, meaning thereby, the assessee herein was not the assignee of the policy, as apprehended by PCIT.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) grants an exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the income from charitable activities was reflected as income from other sources by mere punching error.
The Two-member bench comprising of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial member) held that the issue was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee to exempt its entire income earned from the charitable activities under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act after taking note of all the evidences filed by the assessee. This issue is to be considered along with 154 applications filed by the assessee since both relate to the same aspect. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act holding that the charitable institution would be liable for tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act for activities prior to the registration under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The two-member Bench of Ravish Sood, (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia, (Accountant Member) observed that certain conduct of the assessee in filing of return in form ITR5, showing itself as an AOP/BOI, offering the surplus as taxable income. It was also a fact that the assessee was in position of registration under Section 12AA dated 18/12/2017 when the return for AY 2017-18 was filed on 15-03-2018.
The Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the gratuity premium paid towards the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) holding that the contribution made towards fund is business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act even if the fund was unapproved by the Income Tax Department.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy, (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee also pointed out that none of the dealers to whom the commission was paid was a related party of the assessee as per Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, and that payments were made through cheque after deducting TDS.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed re-adjudication as the notices for fixing date of hearing sent on incorrect email address.
The two-member Bench of C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal, (Accountant Member) considering the facts on record and the discrepancy pointed out as noted above, found that it was proper to remit the matter back to the file of Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) for fresh adjudication by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing him to make his submission in support of the claim.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the valuation of the sale consideration shall be made after seeking the valuation report from the valuation officer as per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench found no basis in the findings of the Assessing Officer, which have been upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], in adopting the value of Rs. 4,99,99,000 as deemed sale consideration without referring the valuation of the land to the Valuation Officer as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the file of the Assessing officer for de novo adjudication after seeking a valuation report from the Valuation Officer as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be imposed if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the non-compliance of notices.
Further, the time given to furnish the reply was very short considering that between two days were Saturday and Sunday. There was a reasonable cause for non-compliance of the notice. The bench did not concur with the findings of the CIT(A) and thus the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act was directed to be deleted. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted another opportunity to the assessee due to the change of chartered accountant the assessee didn’t receive the notices.
The Single-member bench comprising of R.S. Syal (Vice-President) was of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass the assessment order afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of his case in the fresh assessment. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that if due to an erroneous order of the AO, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The assessment framed by AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the A.O. had recorded various reasons for reopening assessment and went on framing the assessment on the said basis and collected the information with reference to the reasons so recorded for reopening of the assessment and the A.O. was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee regarding various issues raised by him. Now the PCIT cannot find fault with the action of the AO and direct A.O. to carry out further enquiry on the materials or judgments of the High Court which are not part of the assessment records. Accordingly, there is no merit in the issues raised by the PCIT in the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the PCIT was quashed. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the unexplained cash as the assessee adopted an evasive or lackadaisical approach and didn’t participate in the assessment proceedings.
The Two-member bench comprising of Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) held that it was not a case where the CIT(A) had discarded any material available on the record and summarily dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine for want of prosecution. Instead, it was a case where in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would substantiate that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in treating the cash deposits of Rs.2,47,65,369/- in the assessee’s bank account as its unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, the CIT(A) had rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the payment of Euro 20,00,000/- (INR 14,33,15,000/-) received by the Appellant from VMI in terms of SA was consideration for transfer of goodwill and the capital gains arising from the aforesaid transaction were correctly offered to tax by the appellant as capital gains.
The two member bench consisting of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial member) held that the payment of Euro 20,00,000/- (INR 14,33,15,000/-) received by the Appellant from VMI in terms of SA was consideration for transfer of goodwill and the capital gains arising from the aforesaid transaction were correctly offered to tax by the Appellant as capital gains. The Assessing Officer was directed to accept the capital gains of INR 13,83,15,000/- offered to tax by the Appellant in the return of income after verification of the computation. In view of the aforesaid, the other contentions/submission advanced by both the sides in relation to payment under consideration being in the nature of compensation for termination of agency or otherwise are rendered academic and therefore, not adjudicated upon. Thus the appeal was partly allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) Delhi bench during the appeal proceedings observed that the lower authorities did not consider sale deeds for determining the nature of sold land as agricultural. Thus the bench directed readjudication for verifying the nature of land sold by assessee.
After considering the facts submitted and circumstance , the two member bench of N.K.Billaiya (Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) are restored to the files of ld. CIT(A) to examine the nature of land on the date of registered agreement to sale on 26.08.2008 and then ascertain whether the land sold would fall within the definition of capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the claim of the long-term capital loss under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the Form 3CEA was not filed with the income tax return (ITR) but was filed before the final order.
The bench was of the view that both the lower authorities ought to have treated the furnishing of Form 3CEA as sufficient compliance for the purpose of allowing long-term capital loss claimed by the assessee under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that in the interest of justice, it was proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The two bench member consisting of R.K Panda (Vice President) and Laliet Kumar (Judicial member) held that the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it was proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A) NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT (A) NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the CIT (A) NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. At the same time, due to the callous attitude of the assessee in ignoring the notices of the CIT(A) NFAC, the bench levied a cost of Rs.3000/- on the assessee which is to be paid to the PMs Relief Fund. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee has not furnished proper details as discussed above in order to substantiate its claim, in the interest of natural justice this issue may be restored to the file of AO for examining it afresh.
After hearing both the parties, the two bench member of the tribunal consisting of Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial member) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant member) held that there should not be any dispute that when there was no actual receipt of money from Kukreja Constructions, the question of making any addition under Section 68 will not arise. Since the assessee has not furnished proper details as discussed above in order to substantiate its claim, in the interest of natural justice this issue may be restored to the file of AO for examining it afresh by considering relevant factual aspects. Accordingly, order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue was set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee that the differences in the account of M/s Kukreja Constructions and M/s Elyco Buiers were due to an accounting error. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the power of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be exercised when there is proper enquiry made by the Assessing Officer.
The Two-member bench comprising of Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) held that the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire along with statutory notices sent to the assessee in response to which the assessee had filed a written reply along with necessary documents and evidence. He perused and considered them. Not only this, the Assessing Officer called for books of account which he verified. So, there was not a case of no enquiry. Therefore, the bench vacated the order of the PCIT and restored the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
