The stories on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that were published at Taxscan.in from January 19, 2024 to January 27, 2024 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that “Live Rights” are not “copyright”, any payments made are not taxable as royalty.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Saktijit Dey, Vice President and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member observed that “We hold that broadcasting “Live events” does not amount to a work in which copyright subsists, meaning thereby right to broadcast live events i.e ., “Live Rights”, is not “copyright” and therefore any payment made thereto can’t be said to be chargeable to tax as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi).”
We find that the payments in dispute are made to overseas rights holder. The said payments are neither made to any satellite operators nor for use of any satellite. Thus, the payments in dispute are not made for use of any “process” as defined under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and can’t be charged to tax as “Royalty” in the hands of the overseas rights holders. Accordingly, we hold that the AO while passing the order under Section 201 of the Ac t has erred in law by treating the remittances to have been made for use of a “Process
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Non Resident status can be given to taxpayer who stayed in India for 176 days under Explanation 1(a) to Section 6(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member observed that “We are of the considered view that by applying the ratio of aforesaid decisions the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of the extended period of 182 days, as provided in Explanation-1(a) to section 6(1) of the Income Tax Act, for the determination of residential status. Since it is undisputed that the assessee has stayed in India only for a period of 176 days during the year, which is less than 182 days as provided in Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has rightly claimed to be a “Non-Resident” during the year for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.”
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Purchase expenditure is outflow against income falling within ambit of under Section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya ( Account member ) observed that assesses council meticulously detailed the transaction, revealing a discrepancy in the Assessing Officer’s case. The inclusion of purchase consideration, based on alleged investor profit manipulations from a SEBI report, raised questions about potential scrutiny of capital gains. Importantly, the Assessing Officer, without questioning the source’s legitimacy, added the entire purchase cost under Section 68. However, Section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 didn’t seem initially applicable, as it addressed inflows, not outflows like purchase costs. Consequently, the Assessing Officer’s addition seemed to lack a solid foundation based on an unsupported premise.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) provided relief to Bajaj Auto by allowing a deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the royalty fee received, recognizing it as pertaining to drawing, design, invention, patent, and trademark.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T varkey ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith singh ( Account member ) observed that Assessment Year 1998-99, where the decision favored by the assessee. The bench noted that, in accordance with the agreement, the assessee granted a license for the assembly of its scooter models. The assessee permitted this process and provided the necessary drawings, subsequently receiving a technical know-how fee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that tax implications and neutrality of transaction play a pivotal role in determining applicability of under Section 40A(2)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rahul Chowdhury ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Account member ) affirmed that even if it is assumed that the payment was excessive, the fact that the subsidiary has been taxed at the same rate makes it a tax-neutral exercise. This conclusion was drawn as there was no apparent case of tax evasion, leading to the deletion of the disallowance.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, citing the Assessing Officer’s rejection of fair market value supported by a valuation report.
The single bench of the tribunal comprising Pradeep Kumar Kediya ( Account member ) observed that the penalty imposition appears unwarranted for several reasons. Firstly, the Assessing Officer disregarded the fair market value, backed by a valuation report. While additions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act 1961 might be justifiable, it doesn’t automatically imply concealment, as asserted in the assessment order.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has rejected the claim for the deduction of expenditure on a masala grinder and toaster, as reported under capital expenditure in the tax audited report.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T varkey (Account member) and Amarjith Singh (Judicial member) noted that the aforementioned amount was indicated as capital expenditure in the tax audited report and was also disallowed in the income tax return. Consequently, it is concluded that the disallowance of this expenditure is not warranted. Therefore, we instruct the AO to eliminate the addition made towards the expenditure on the Masala Grinder and Toaster, subject to verification of the assessee’s claim.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to conduct a fresh assessment due to the inadequacy of the inquiry into the source of fresh capital
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad ( Judicial member ) and G.S Pannu ( Vice President ) concluded that the assessment order dated 14.03.2014 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The order was set aside with directions to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after a thorough examination of the case, considering all available evidence on record, or that may be produced or furnished by the Assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has instructed the Assessing Officer (AO) to restrict the disallowance percentages for aggregate expenditure, conveyance charges, office maintenance, Sunday, and business promotion expenses due to the non-production of complete bills and vouchers.
The Single member bench of the tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale( Judicial member) observed that CIT (A) overlooked crucial evidence, per the arguments presented by the counsel for the assessee, who contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify a particular expenditure item for disallowance. The AO’s presumptive estimations of disallowances on legitimate business expenditures incurred, based on incomplete bills and vouchers, were contested. Ledger account copies supporting the claims were provided. The bench concluded that the counsel for the assessee emphasized past and subsequent years’ expenditure percentages relative to business turnover. Recommending a reversal of the CIT(A)’s decision, directing the AO to restrict disallowances to 3% (from 10%) for aggregate expenditures and 2% (from 5%) for office maintenance in the current assessment year. Partially favoring the assessee’s appeal.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the imposition of interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act 1961, stating that income tax cannot be levied on income that has already been paid.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rahul Choudhari ( Judicial member) and Om Prakash Kanth( Account member) concluded that taking into account the assessee’s assertion that the self-assessment tax had already been paid, and considering the failure to file a return due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, The bench hereby remanded the matter of interest imposition under section 234A of Income Tax Act 1961 back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was instructed to make a decision in accordance with the applicable laws.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Business receipt or unexplained cash receipt can be assessed u/S 69 A of Income Tax Act 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rahul Choudhari ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Account member ) observed that to categorize those cash receipts as business receipts, the assessee was required to disclose the names and addresses of the parties from whom the cash was received, i.e., the source. Since the assessee had not provided this crucial information, section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961, was deemed applicable.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) delivered a setback to Bajaj Auto by allowing the deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act 1961 only after deducting depreciation from the profits of eligible undertakings.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T varkey ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith Singh (Account member) noted that a similar issue with identical facts in the cases of the assessee has already been decided against the assessee for the Assessment Years 1993-94 to 1998-99, In line with the decision of the co-ordinate bench mentioned above, the appeal ground of the assessee was dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Surplus on Redemption of Treasury bill is to be taxed under Capital Gains.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Abi T Varkey ( Judicial member ) and Amarjit Singh ( Account member ) had ruled in favor of the assessee. The bench following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Grace Collis had determined that the surplus on the redemption of treasury bills should be taxed under the head Capital Gains. Therefore, in alignment with the coordinated bench’s decision, the Assessing Officer was directed to assess the same as capital gains.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to Bajaj Auto Ltd by allowing a deduction under Section 40(a) (i) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for expenditures incurred in foreign currency.
Consequently, no tax was deducted for these transactions. In the course of the appellate proceedings, the revenue failed to present any substantial evidence contradicting the findings established by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ). As a result, this ground of appeal by the revenue has been dismissed due to a lack of merit.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 on Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR ) expenses The assessee, operating in real estate construction and development, filed its income tax return for the relevant year on 14/01/2021, declaring a total income of Rs. 71,49,06,790. The filed return underwent scrutiny, and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, were issued. During the assessment, it was observed that the assessee claimed an interest expense of Rs. 7851 lakh at the rate of 21.3% on debentures.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Om Prakash Kanth ( Account member ) and Sandeep Singh Krahail (Judicial member) observed that the consistently favored the assesse’s position. They maintained that despite the non-allowance of CSR expenses under section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961, following the insertion of Explanation-2 to section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Finance Act, 2014, effective from 01/04/2015, such expenditures were still permissible under section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961. The CIT(A) similarly adhered to these judicial precedents and rendered a favorable decision for the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to conduct a fresh assessment due to the inadequacy of the inquiry into the source of fresh capital.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad ( Judicial member ) and G.S Pannu ( Vice President ) concluded that the assessment order dated 14.03.2014 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The order was set aside with directions to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after a thorough examination of the case, considering all available evidence on record, or that may be produced or furnished by the Assessee. The bench observed that the AO had not properly examined the source, especially considering that in the earlier assessment year 2010-11, fresh capital introduced by the assessee was found unexplained by the AO.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961,citing the Assessing Officer’s rejection of fair market value supported by a valuation report.
The bench observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) altered the grounds for imposing the penalty, moving from the initial accusation of concealing income to asserting “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” during the penalty proceedings. This change raised legal questions. Similarly, the CIT(A) was not authorized by law to independently uphold the AO’s action without considering the satisfaction derived during the assessment. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty lacked validity on this basis. The bench concluded that thus seen from any angle, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the present set of circumstances was unsustainable in law. set aside the first appellate order and direct the AO to reverse and cancel the penalty. In the result, appeal of assessee was allowed
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the assessment order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( appeals ) acknowledging that the non-appearance due to continuation of information gathering process not deliberate act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pathmavathy ( Account member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadali ( Judicial member ) observed that the CIT( A ) based the decision on the assessee’s non-appearance, despite seeking an adjournment and being provided with ample hearing opportunities. The CIT( A ) concluded that the assessee displayed a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal and subsequently dismissed it based on the existing records. The grounds of appeal challenged the Assessing Officer’s additions, and various reasons for non-appearance could be considered. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the bench chose to grant the assessee another hearing opportunity.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed appeal due to non-appearance and failure to submit documentation for exemption claim under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Gagan Goyal (Account member) and Narendar Kumar Choudhary (Judicial member) concluded that Assessee neither appeared nor filed an adjournment application. The appeal was decided ex parte. The authorities noted that the Assessee, despite claiming exemption of Rs.1,05,00,000/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for investment in house property, failed to provide supporting documents. The denial of the claim was affirmed, as no contrary reason or material was found against the Commissioner’s findings.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80 C of Income Tax Act 1961 interest on housing loan property. In response to the demand raised in the order issued under Section 80 C of Income Tax Act 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the assessee lodged an appeal before the First Appellate Authority ( FAA ). However, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT ( A ).
The single bench of the tribunal comprising George George K ( Vice President ) found that for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the income tax return was filed manually on 31.07.2008. During this period, the assessee had resigned from a previous job and joined Microsoft Ltd, which was mentioned in the filed income tax return. The primary request in the current appeal is for the allowance of deductions under Section 80 c of Income Tax Act 1961 and for the interest on the housing loan.
Two member bench of ITAT Raipur granted the assessee’s right to file application for exemption under section 154 of Income Tax Act claiming deduction for delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/EPF
The two member bench of the ITAT comprising of Arun Khodpia ( Accountant Member ) and Ravish Sood ( Judicial Member ) held that “ in terms of our aforesaid observations, set-aside the order passed by the CIT ( Appeals ) wherein he had upheld the order passed by the CPC/A.O u/s. 154 of the Act, and thus, declined the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/PF and vacate the addition of Rs.24,72,236/ made by the A.O.” The appeal made by the assessee was allowed. The bench granted the assessee’s right to file application for exemption under section 154 of Income Tax Act claiming deduction for delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/EPF.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that information found in the pen drive /laptop of employees cannot be considered as credible evidence and directed to delete the addition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessee was represented by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal and Shri K.C. Selvamani represented the respondent.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale held that the information found in the pen drive/laptop of employees cannot be considered credible evidence unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Accordingly, no credence could be given to the abstract entries made in the pen drive/laptop. The ITAT viewed that the AO could not have made additions based on that information. Accordingly, we confirm the decision of CIT(A) to delete the additions in both years for the reasons discussed above.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of unexplained investments based on the stock valuation difference. The assessee admitted the difference of Rs.1,04,00,600/- as income, which has to be taxed as ‘normal business income’ and not as ‘unexplained investment’ under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench of Shri Mahavir Singh, ( Vice President ) and Shri Manjunatha G, ( Accountant ) Member observed that the assessee has declared additional income towards excess stock found during the survey and the assessee has explained the source for excess stock found during the survey i.e., that it was out of income earned from current year business or earlier years business and surrendered the amount, the AO has not done anything to dispute the claim of the assessee that the source was not from the business income. Hence, the AO cannot apply the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench while deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that capital gain earned from sale of shares could not be held as bogus merely on the basis of a report unearthed in case of third parties.
The tribunal observed that the capital gain earned by the assessee as ultimately held bogus on the basis of a report unearthed in case of third party/parties has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench In case of Alpa Udaykumar Shah vs. ITO. Therefore the addition treating the long term capital gain earned by the assessee out of the sale of impugned shares of the company namely M/s Comfort Fincap Ltd. on the basis of report unearthed by any third party in the absence of any cogent material brought against the assessee is not sustainable in the eye of law. After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member ) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) held that capital gain earned from sale of shares could not be held as bogus merely on the basis of a report unearthed in case of third parties.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai while upheld the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the assessee failed to file Form No.10CCB along with the Return of Income.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manjunatha. G,( Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) held that the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench deleted calculations made by AO on cost funds by applying a 15%flat ratio, the ad-hoc basis on interest income earned by cooperative society through providing credit facilities to its members.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of George George K, (Vice President) deleted calculations made by AO on cost funds by applying a 15%flat ratio, the ad-hoc basis on interest income earned through providing credit facilities to its members.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
Accordingly the tribunal determined that the property is deemed to have been acquired by the firm only and not by individual partners. This being so, the provisions of Sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) could not be pressed into service since these provisions do not apply to partnership firm at the relevant point of time After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,(Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) held that the Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore bench while upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of George George K, ( Vice President ) upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,(Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) held that the Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) Income Tax Act , 1961 would not be applied when property purchased for business use of partnership firm.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore bench while upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of George George K, ( Vice President ) upheld the addition made under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act held that no prudent man would retain a sum for a long period to redeposit in an account.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench while allowing benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that levying/collecting fees for guarantee from Member Lending Institutions ( MLIs ) are not profit motive.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Rifaur Rahman, ( Accountant member ) and Kuldip Singh, ( Judicial Member ) held that levying/collecting fees for guarantee from Member Lending Institutions ( MLIs ) are not profit motive. Therefore the bench allowed the benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai bench held that no addition should be made on the basis of outcome of confirmatory letters when assessee proved genuineness of business transactions.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant member and V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member deleted additions made merely on the basis of outcome of confirmatory letters. Venkata Raman, counsel appeared for assessee and V. Sreenivasan counsel appeared for revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench directed it to restrict to the extent of 50% of unexplained portion of cash and Gold bars received as gift from family in Navjote ceremony of son.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Rifaur Rahman, ( Accountant member ) and Kuldip Singh, ( Judicial Member ) directed to restrict to the extent of 50% of unexplained portion of cash and Gold bars received as gift from family in Navjote ceremony of son.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench ruled that no addition should be made upon the employee who acts on behalf of the directors of the company.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant member) and Kuldip Singh, (Judicial Member) held that no addition should be made upon the employee who acts on behalf of the directors of the company.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench directed the deposit cost of Rs 51,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund( PMNRF ) within the 30 days due to delay in filing appeal before the Income Tax Department.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of Padmavathy S ( Accountant member ) and Amit Shukla,( Judicial Member ) remand the issue to the file of commissioner and directed the deposit cost of Rs 51,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund( PMNRF ) within the 30 days Devendra Jain, counsel appeared for assessee and Harshad S. Vengurkar counsel appeared for revenue
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Observed that allows deduction under Section 80-IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 for car parking income, Health club income, food court income and Interest income
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharat ( Judicial member ) and Shmim Yahya ( Account member ) observed that in the case of M/s. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd. has allowed u/S 80- IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 deduction in similar circumstances by holding that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by Supreme Court judgment in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. Vs. CIT ( 2016 ) In the same order, ITAT has allowed deduction towards u/S 80-IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 towards car parking rental in favour of the assessee. The bench finds that the above instances are assessee’s group cases and cover the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/S 80-IAB of Income Tax Act 1961 towards car parking income, income from health club, income from food court and interest income. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench while sustaining the revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 held that the assessment was completed in a routine and mechanical manner without due diligence and due application of mind .
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of S. Rifaur Rahman(Accountant member ) and Narender Kumar Choudhry,(Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench ruled that no addition should be made under Section 68 of the income Tax Act , 1961 on the basis of statement of third party with respect to sale of shares carried through proper banking channel.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench Of S. Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Narender Kumar Choudhry,( Judicial Member ) held that no addition should be made under Section 68 of the income Tax Act , 1961 on the basis of statement of third party with respect to sale of shares carried through proper banking channel.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench directed readjudication with respect to contracts and bills of client code modification (CCM)carried out by brokers and assessee.
After reviewing the facts and records, the single -member bench Of Narender Kumar Choudhry,(Judicial Member)remand the file to the Assessing Officer for determination of entries in the client code were made as per the contracts and bills of brokers and Assessee has no knowledge of changes made and neither made any payment nor receive any payment for the trade form the broker
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Punitive damages is not allowable as expenditure
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising M.Bala Ganesh (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) concluded that ground with its sub-grounds was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that except for the punitive damages of Rs.25 lakhs, the remaining disallowances are not sustained. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed partly. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 194 C of Income Tax 1961 was applicable on Common Area Maintenance ( CAM ) charges
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial member ) and N.k Billaiya ( Account member ) had ruled that payments were Common Area Maintenance ( CAM ) charges, not rent, emphasizing their independence from rental payments
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai bench, while upholding the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observed that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of Hotel Business income.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) and Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) upheld the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to failing to produce documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of Hotel Business income. Rituja Pawar Deswal, counsel for the assessee, and P.D. Chogule, counsel for revenue, were present during the proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench directed readjudication due to the failure to produce documents concerning the loan transaction and the purchase and pledge of shares.
After considering the submissions of both parties, the two-member bench of S Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) remanded the case to the file of AO with a direction to consider the documents. Malav P Sheth, counsel for the assessee, and Ujjawal Kumar, counsel for revenue, appeared during the proceedings. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Sale Without Purchase is Invalid, as it was evident that the accounting is complete only by taking into account both sides of the transactions. The ITAT deleted the addition under the Income Tax Act, of 1961 on Bogus Purchase.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member observed that the additions made by the AO are not only erroneous but are also contrary to directions of DRP.The exclusion of purchases from the trading results is not permissible without the corresponding exclusion of the sales in such trading activity for arriving at a fair and balanced view. The ITAT directed the AO to reverse the additions made and restore the position taken by the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
