The stories on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that were published at Taxscan.in from January 12, 2024 to January 19, 2024 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench directed readjudication in respect of addition made on receipts of agricultural activity.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) and Sandeep Singh Karhail, (Judicial Member) directed readjudication in respect of addition made on receipts of agricultural activity. Rituja Pawar Deswal, counsel appeared for assessee and P.D. Chogule , counsel appeared for revenue.
In a major relief to the Indian Chamber of Commerce ( ICC ), the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted income tax exemption on receipts from seminars and conferences.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President ( KZ ) and Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member observed that “We are inclined to hold that the ICC is not carrying on any activity of holding meetings, seminars and conferences for business purpose but only in support its main object and it charges from its participants, members and non-members the amount of fee which does not even covers the cost of holding such events. In our opinion, the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and in view of that the ICC is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act as the activities of the advancement of main object is not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act even post amendments.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad bench upheld the order of canceling deduction of Tax Deduction at Source at 20% on payment made by the Indian Company for damage of vessels
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant member ) and Madhumita Roy,(Judicial Member) upheld the order of canceling deduction of Tax Deduction at Source at 20% on payment made by the Indian Company for damage of vessels
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Hyderabad bench, while deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, held that unbilled revenue could not be considered as income once it had been written off.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of R.K. Panda ( Vice-President ) and Laliet Kumar ( Judicial Member ) held that unbilled revenue could not be considered as income once it had been written off. Hence, the bench allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Cost of acquisition of capital assets under section 48(ii) of Income Tax Act 1961, should be the actual cost of acquisition of agricultural land.
The two member bench tribunal comprising Annapurna Gupta (Account Member) and Siddhartha Noutiyal (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT (A) aptly noted the unreliability of the registered value’s report, as explained in their order. Considering the case’s particulars, the CIT (A) appropriately affirmed the Assessing Officer’s decision to refer the matter to the valuation officer for determining the asset’s value. Consequently, discerned no substance in the supplementary argument presented by the assessee. The Assessee’s additional ground was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) nullified the assessment order under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act 1961, citing the non-mentioning of a valid Director Identification Number ( DIN ).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S Pannu ( Vice President ) and Justice C.V. Bhadang ( President ) observed that All that the communication stated was about the provision of a facility for the generation of Intimation Letters containing Document Identification Number/Document Number ( DIN/DN ) for documents issued outside the ITBA system but uploaded manually in the Income Tax Business Application ( ITBA ). In the result, the Appeals of the Assesses are allowed and the assessment orders are set aside.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that Mistakes from typographical error not leading to tax evasion is not unexplained cash credit.
After reviewing arguments and records, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rahul Choudhari ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Account member ) concluded that the key question was whether a discrepancy in declaring a higher value for the share of profit from partnership firms, compared to the actual share, qualified as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that onus is on Income Tax Department, to bring corroborative material to tax amount credited in foreign bank account of Non- Resident Indian ( NRI )
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising T.R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial member ) and Waseem Ahammed ( Account member ) concluded that The revenue, burdened by the assessee’s non-resident status, needed corroborative material to tax the foreign bank account credits. The assessee, a resident but not an ordinary resident for A.Y.s 2000-01 to 2003-04, faced a reopened assessment with no additions for deposits in Citibank NA Singapore or Habib Bank AG Zurich. The revenue treated these deposits as arising outside India and beyond Indian control. Affirmed the CIT( A )’s order, dismissing the revenue’s appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi bench, dismissed the refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax- DDT paid to non-resident companies. The assessee, Sennheiser Electronics India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of sales and distribution of headphones, microphones, monitoring systems, tour guide systems, and aviation headsets. It imports goods from Sennheiser group companies for resale through its distributors in India.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ) and Amit Shukla ( Judicial Member ) dismissed the refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax paid to non-resident companies. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates, appeared for the assessee, and Sanjay Kumar, counsel, appeared for revenue. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad bench upheld the order of canceling deduction of Tax Deduction at Source at 20% on payment made by the Indian Company for damage of vessels
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant member ) and Madhumita Roy,( Judicial Member ) upheld the order of canceling deduction of Tax Deduction at Source at 20% on payment made by the Indian Company for damage of vessels Hence the bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
The Chennai bench of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the income tax appeal, citing no bonafide cause for the 1040-day delay in filing.
The two member bench of the tribunal comparing Manomohandas ( Judicial member ) and Manju Natha G. (Account member) observed that after a thorough evaluation, it was determined that the assessee did not present a reasonable and bona fide cause to condone the 1040-day delay in filing these appeals. As a result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all three assessment years were dismissed as unadmitted. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all three assessment years were dismissed
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Interest expenditure incurred on capital allowable as deduction under Section 24 of Income Tax Act 1961 and not part of cost acquisition.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Inturi Rama Rao ( Account member ) concluded that the cost of acquisition of property also forms an integral part of the sale of property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Officer had traveled beyond the items for which the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal/additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stood dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted an exemption on capital gains related to the transfer of a residential property, despite a 10-year delay in the verification process by the Assessing Officer ( AO ).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari ( Account member) and Beena Pillai ( Judicial member ) concluded that After examining the sale deed dated 09.11.2012, it became evident that the assessee had transferred a residential property, making them eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961,
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled in favour of Vodafone Idea, granting relief by allowing deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act 1961, for undertakings for providing telecommunication services.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and B.R. Baskaran( Accountant Member) concluded that the assessee initiated telecommunication services after April 1, 1995, rendering them eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Subsequently, the assessee’s deduction claims for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were granted, following this established precedent. In the recent assessment year, the denial of the assessee’s deduction claim corresponds with the rationale applied in the assessment year 2006-07.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the Sale receipts already recorded as income or loss at time of sale was unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra poojari ( Account member ) and Beena Pillai (Judicial member) observed that the absence of any evidence casting a shadow on the purchase of shares, a fact clearly documented in the assessee’s books. Once the purchase or transfer of shares was duly acknowledged in the relevant assessment year, any disruption to the corresponding sales required irrefutable evidence or findings. Consequently, we found no justification in the rationale presented by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) to include the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the assessee’s financial obligations. From our perspective, the addition made should have been expunged. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi bench, while directing readjudication, observed that the notice for continuing assessment proceedings of deceased persons was issued in the individual name instead of Hindu Undivided Family ( HUF ).
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Kul Bharat ( Judicial Member ) restored the matter to the file of the AO, who would verify and decide the objections raised by the assessee regarding the assessment proceedings of the deceased person issued in the individual name instead of HUF.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption ) [CIT(E)] assessment order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Assessing Officer ( AO ) made thorough scrutiny.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Manjunatha G, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member that the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The AO has considered the issue of exemption under section 11 of the Act, while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, which is evident from the assessment proceedings, where, the AO has called for various details. The ITAT held that the CIT ( Exemptions ) erred in invoking their jurisdiction and set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 263 of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench, directed readjudication regarding depreciation claims on goodwill arising from the acquisition of business under a slump sale. I&B Seeds Private Limited, the assessee, a private limited company engaged in R&D, production, and marketing of hybrid seeds, purchased proprietary concerns from Mr. Praveen Noojibail and M/s. Sasya Gentech Private Limited during AY 2015-16. The assessee claimed depreciation on the goodwill, the amount paid to the transferors beyond the value of net assets taken over.
Following a review of facts and records, the two-member bench consisting of Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) directed readjudication concerning depreciation claims on goodwill arising from the acquisition of business under a slump sale, considering the final outcome of the decision in the case of M/s. Padmini Products Pvt. Ltd. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that even if the gross receipts of the assessee exceeds the threshold limit prescribed in the proviso under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, still there is no need for cancellation of the registration under Section 12AA(3).
The bench of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) stated that for that particular year alone, the assessee’s activities would not to be construed as charitable activities and assessee would be subjected to tax as a normal business assessee. This fact is duly clarified by the CBDT No. 21/2016 dated 27.05.2016. Hence, the bench granted approval to the raised grounds and accepted the assessee’s appeal.
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), held that payment received from the sale/supply of software is not royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ).
Therefore, a division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia held that payment received from the sale/supply of software is not royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Satyen Sethi and Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates, appeared for the petitioner, and Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate, appeared for the respondent.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ) has held that deduction on physical fitness expenses is not allowable in the absence of evidence to prove the expenses were for professional purposes.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri R K Panda, Vice President and Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member while dismissing the appeal observed that “Though the physical fitness was a part and parcel of assessee’s profession it cannot be held to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the profession of the assessee. Even the assessee has not filed any evidence to show that he underwent any weight loss program to fulfil his professional commitment. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, this ground of the assessee dismissed
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which validated the Transfer Pricing ( TP ) report by holding that rejecting the TP analysis without giving any specific reason is invalid.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) upheld the findings given by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue regarding the TP adjustment.
In a recent case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that foreign exchange loss cannot be included in the cost of the project and allowed it as a Deduction.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) observed that the foreign exchange gain or loss arises when the amount of sundry creditors outstanding at the time of payment is settled. The sundry creditors are the monetary items as per the Ind As 21.
In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that investment in gold and foreign companies should be excluded but while computing the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii) had included the same and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals).
A two-member bench comprising Shri Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) observed that the disallowance under section 14 A of the act added by the assessing officer while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the act.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only covers expenses regarding exempt income.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri R K Panda, Vice President and Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member found that CIT( A ) while passing his order has categorically mentioned that disallowing Rs.50,000/- under section 14A of the Act is fair and reasonable to cover up any expenses as such concerning exempt income and granted part relief to the assessee. While dismissing the appeal, the ITAT upheld the findings of the CIT( A ).
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the director’s salary and handover facility expenses are incurred yearly and are business expenses.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Kuldip Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Ms Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ) upheld the decision of the CIT( A ) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Employee’s ESOP compensation expense can be allowable as business expenditure as it was used to retain the talent /staff for the benefit of the company.
While holding in favour of the Assessee, the two-member bench comprising Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member noticed that the assertions made on behalf of the Assessee that similar claim had been allowed in the earlier years by the AO. While allowing the appeal, the ITAT directed the AO to reverse disallowance.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the claim of 50 % depreciation on a sample flat used for less than 180 days is allowable and deleted the disallowance. It was found that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the sample flat is a temporary structure and no contrary findings being brought on record.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Kuldip Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Ms Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ) observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the sample flat is a temporary structure and no contrary findings being brought on record. The ITAT held that the assessee’s claim of 50% of the cost of construction for the year under consideration is allowed. The disallowance made in this regard was deleted.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest earned from commercial /cooperative banks having a license under the Banking Regulation Act is considered under Head of Income From Other Sources.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Chandra Poojari, an Accountant Member and Smt Beena Pillai, a Judicial Member held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank that does not have a license under section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, falls outside the definition the term, “Banking Company” as per section 2(c ) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO is thus directed to carry out necessary verification in respect of that same to consider the claim of deduction under section 80 P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Commission Paid to Agents Outside India does not Fall under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of any services of a technical nature and set aside the disallowance of expense made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
A two-member bench comprising Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member observed that the overseas agents were paid commission for securing orders etc., and such services were utilised to make or earn income from a source outside India, the assessee is under no obligation to apply with provisions of Section 195 of the Act for the reasons that commission to such overseas agents are not taxable under the Act. The AO has not alleged or established anything to the contrary. The AO was thus not justified to disallow such commission expenses under the Act.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
