The stories on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that were published at Taxscan.in from December 30, 2023 to January 12, 2024 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench, held that the Assessing Officer should not disallow business loss incurred in share transactions without verifying the documents.
The bench observed during the proceedings that documents such as contract notes, investor’s report, and client-wise sauda summary were before the Assessing Officer, but he did not take cognizance of these documents, stating that the assessee was directly involved in sham and bogus transactions of entry providers.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore bench observed that the assessee was delayed in the payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and Provident Fund. Consequently, the bench upheld the disallowance made by the lower authorities.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single-member bench of Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) held that any delay in the payment of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF beyond the date prescribed in the respective Act will be disallowed. Consequently, the bench dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench, while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee, observed that the assessee failed to provide details for the commissioning of assets on different dates to compute correct depreciation.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that to adjudicate the issue, the assessee has to provide details regarding the commissioning of assets on different dates before the AO to compute the correct depreciation. Therefore, the assessee failed to produce the necessary documents.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, while upholding the reassessment proceedings, held that the sale and purchase of immovable property by the assessee were not disclosed in the original return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench, held that the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued to produce required documents contemplated under Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, after analyzing the facts, the tribunal directs readjudication by providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The bench, during the proceedings, observed that the purpose of the provisions for the registration of trust under Section 12A/12AB and granting of recognition under section 80G of the Act derives their spirit from the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench held that no proceedings should be initiated when the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) granted a moratorium against corporate debtors under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of N.K. Billaiya (Accountant member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) observed that NCLT has granted a moratorium against the institution of proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench held that the absence of bills and invoices for wristwatches found during the search proceedings should not be a reason for making additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench noted the assessee’s substantial means, demonstrated by the capital account statement. After reviewing the facts, the bench, consisting of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) and N. Saktijit Dey (Vice-President), concluded that the assessee had ample means to invest in the wristwatches.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench directed readjudication of matter due to an inability to identify the relevant income disclosed in the Income Tax Return for the claim of Tax Deduction at Source.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant member) remanded the matter to the file of the A.O. for the limited purposes of verification and reconciliation with respect to the TDS claim.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, while directing readjudication, observed that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the payment made for vacating the encroached land.
The tribunal observed that the assessee claimed to have paid Rs. 1,30,00,000/- to Shri Ganesh Vithal Indore for vacating the encroached land at Palghar. The AO summoned Shri Ganesh Vithal Indore; however, in spite of service of summon u/s 131 of the Act, Shri Ganesh Vithal Indore neither appeared nor filed any details/reply.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) nullified income tax additions in a penny stock deal for quick gains.
The two-member bench comprising Narendra Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) observed that though characteristics of penny stock existed, the department didn’t provide materials linking the assessee to dubious transactions related to entry, price rigging, or exit providers.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that minor delays in uploading assessment orders or generating Document Identification Number (DIN) will not render assessments unsustainable.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aakash Deep Jain (Vice President) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) concluded that Section 153(3) did not impose a limitation period for issuing, uploading, or communicating orders. In a case where the assessment order was made on 31/03/2022 but uploaded, and DIN generated on 01/04/2022, with communication on 03/04/2022, the Court rejected claims of limitation
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Authority rejected revenue’s case for filing an appeal against the decision on CIT(A) for taxing the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The bench came to this conclusion as it was ascertained that there wasn’t sufficient cause for imposing Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the assessee.
The two member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice-President) after consideration of the order of CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
