The stories on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that were published at Taxscan.in from January 27, 2024 to February 2, 2024 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that failure to make a note in file of person searched does not vitiate proceedings under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Madhumitha Roy ( Judicial member ) and Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) observed that Failure by the Assessing Officer of the searched individual to document this transmission in the searched individual’s file, despite sending the satisfaction note and documents to the Assessing Officer of the other person, will not invalidate the proceedings under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the other person. However, it’s mandatory for the satisfaction note to affirm that the seized documents from the searched individual pertain to the other person and to transmit such materials to the Assessing Officer of the other person.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the deletion of disallowance on deduction in respect of wealth tax paid.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T Varkey ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith Singh ( Account member ) observed that in the case of the taxpayer for Assessment Year 1998-99, the ITAT, following the precedent set by coordinate benches, concluded that the wealth tax paid by the taxpayer was not subject to disallowance. In alignment with the decisions of the coordinate benches, the Assessing Officer was instructed to remove the disallowance.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) observed that the amount received as per Article 12(3) of India- United State of America (USA) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)., not royalty u/s 9(1) (vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S.Pannu ( Vice President) and Saktijit Dey ( Vice President) concluded that the remuneration received by the assessee does not meet the criteria for royalty under both section 9(1)(vi) ) of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, instruct the Assessing Officer to remove the additions for both disputed assessment years.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Income from other sources due to duplicate entries found in Form 26AS.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Saktijit Dey ( Vice president ) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar ( Accountant member ) made the decision to remove the addition of Rs. 27,26,225 under the category of “income from other sources.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that No claim for weighted deduction on donation can be claimed under Section 35(1) (ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member ) concluded that the unequivocally endorsed the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( CIT ) in deeming the assessment order flawed for permitting a clearly ineligible claim of weighted deduction to the assessee
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ruling that consideration from the sale of urban agricultural land was subject to capital gains tax.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra ( Judicial member ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member ) concluded that the sale consideration of the disputed land was subject to capital gains tax in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to allow the cost of improvement with indexation and to re-compute capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S.Pannu ( Vice president ) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) directed the Assessing Officer to permit the cost of improvement with indexation and to recalculate the capital gains accordingly. In the result, appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) decided to delete the income tax addition, as it found that the taxable contract income exceeded the fixed price contract value under Section 97 of the Income Tax Act,1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising V. Durga Rao ( Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal ( Accountant member) observed that a crucial aspect to consider was that the total contract revenue had been dutifully subjected to taxation throughout the entire contract period, spanning from the fiscal years 2012-13 to 2022-23. This was substantiated by the comprehensive details of invoices presented in the records.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Fees or management support under Section 9(1) (vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, was not fees for technical services ( FTS ) under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising G.S Pannu ( Vice President ) and C.N Prasad ( Judicial member ) concluded that in accordance with the Tribunal’s decision for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16, and the bench concluded that the fee received from Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. for management support services does not fall under the category of Fees for Technical Services ( FTS).
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271 of Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the Assessing Officer’s failure to fulfill conditions under Section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single member bench of the tribunal comparing Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant member ) nullified the order issued under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- was instructed to be revoked. The grounds of appeal presented by the assessee were granted in accordance with the aforementioned terms. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) grants relief to American Express by allowing the deduction of relocation expenses under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) Allowed of relocation expenses under Section 40(a) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has accepted additional evidence regarding Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961, deduction on common maintenance charges.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Challa Nagendra prasad (Judicial member) and Shamim Yahya ( Accountant member ) accepted the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was sent back to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) ( CIT (A) ) for a fresh examination, considering the implications of the Common Area Maintenance Agreement. It was imperative to note that the assessee should have been afforded the opportunity to present their case and be heard during this reconsideration process.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), directed to verify documents with respect to Form 10-IC in case of dispute in concessional rate of tax while processing of return of income.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Padmavathy S, (Accountant member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadale, (Judicial Member) directed the assessee is to furnish the relevant details in support of the claim of applications of concessional rate of tax under section 115 BAA and co-operate with the appellate proceedings.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the addition made on the self-occupied house property in the hands of the husband due to the absence of a percentage of ownership in the sale deed.
After observing the submissions of both parties, the two-member bench of Anil Chaturvedi ( Accountant Member ) and Astha Chandra ( Judicial Member ) upheld the addition made on self-occupied house property in the hands of the husband due to the absence of a percentage of ownership in the sale deed.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the bench held that penalty notice was issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable parts.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Prashant Maharishi, (Accountant member ) and Rahul Chaudhary, (Judicial Member) directed the Assessing Officer to compute short credited interest under section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that unaccounted money was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) and Madumitha Roy ( Judicial member ) crucial to noted that Clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80I8(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were introduced by the Finance Act (No.2), 2009, and are applicable to transactions initiated on or after 01.04.2010. This information is discerned from Circular No.5/2010 dated 03.06.2010.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that non-appearance before the appellate authority is not a wanton act and, consequently, allowed the Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) liability under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) and Pavn Kumar Gadale ( Judicial member) observed that the counsel for the assessee contested this view, asserting that the assessee was actively engaged in gathering necessary information and that the non-appearance before the appellate authority was not a deliberate act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenge the Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) liability under section 201(1) and the interest payable under section 201(1A), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as determined by the assessing officer. The counsel for the assessee argued that there could be various legitimate reasons for the non-appearance that should not be overlooked.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded an Escapement of Income notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to an 1190-day delay in filing the appeal, citing medical reasons.
The Single bench of the tribunal comprising Sujithra Kamble (Judicial member) observed that the assessee relocated to Halol in the Panchmahal District of Gujarat due to employment. During this period, the assessee faced challenges in coordinating with the tax consultant or professional regarding the appeal filed before the CIT (A). The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, amounting to 1190 days, has been adequately explained due to the assessee’s medical reasons.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed an appeal, emphasizing that the mere disclosure of addresses and identities of shareholders was not sufficient under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kmar ( Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member ) questioned the credibility of a sudden increase in share premium from Rs. 1,90,000 to Rs. 3,43,42,500, considering the company’s meager reported income. Citing legal precedents, the CIT(A) emphasized that the burden of proof under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lies with the assessee, mere banking channel transactions are insufficient, and the mere provision of PAN and return copies does not discharge the burden.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Income earned from carrying out educational activity was eligible for exemption under Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sanjay Kumar ( Judicial member ) and Dr. Manish Board ( Account member ) concluded that the focus shifted to contesting the revisionary order by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption ) [ CIT (E) ] under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Durgapur Society of Management Science, mainly engaged in educational activities, faced scrutiny as gross receipts for the year totaled Rs. 3,97,86,089, with building rent exceeding 50% at Rs. 2,02,34,592.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that legal fiction created under Section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961, not to be extended further for broadening concept of shareholders
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra ( Judicial member ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member ) carefully examined the directives issued by the authorities in this matter. After reviewing the chart delineating the distribution of shares, as presented elsewhere, it was evident that the assessee did not possess any shares in the contested company. The esteemed Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, as established in the case of Ankitech Private Limited, unequivocally ruled that the legal fiction established under section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961, served to expand the definition of dividend exclusively, and this legal fiction should not be extrapolated to further broaden the concept of shareholders.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) has nullified a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the Notice issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind is bad in law.
The bench concluded that the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying the relevant limb for initiating the penalty proceedings, it appears evident that the notices were issued in a standardized manner without due consideration. This approach, being legally flawed, renders the notices insufficient to validate the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In light of these circumstances, the court aligned with the view, upheld by various courts, including the Supreme Court, that under such conditions, the penalty was not applicable. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Pending assessment get abated under Section 153 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 after conducting search and obtaining information
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra ( Judicial member ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member ) contention was that even if the assessments were in progress, the occurrence of a search and the subsequent revelation of information to the Revenue triggered the abatement of pending assessments, as outlined in Section 153A of the Income-tax Act. It was crucial to note that proceedings under section 153C were a direct consequence of actions initiated under Section 153A. Therefore, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Singh Bhatia, the contested assessment order should have been formulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) without indexing cost of acquisition is to be considered for computing tax liability under Section 115JB of income Tax Act 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kavitha Raja Gopal ( Judicial member ) and S. Rifaur Rahman ( Account member ) emphasized the allowance of indexation benefits, particularly as the assessee company was established as a Special Purpose Vehicle for the transfer of Land and Building.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to UTI India Fund Unit Scheme by exempting it under section 10(23D) of the Income Tax Act 1961. This decision stems from the acknowledgment that the offshore fund scheme maintained by UTI India Fund Unit Scheme was an approved unit according to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Narendra Kumar Chaudhary (Judicial member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Account member) noted that the assessee fund was part of Schedule II (Sr. No. 37) of the Repeal Act, vested with UTI Mutual Fund. Despite the Act’s restructuring, the assessee, established for offshore funds, retained its distinct identity, maintained separate books of accounts, and used the same PAN. The assessee was registered under various schemes in Schedule II of UTI Mutual Fund, with its scheme approved by SEBI. The assertion that separate SEBI registration was necessary, as suggested by the Assessing Officer for section 10(23D) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Exemption was unwarranted. The documents submitted by the assessee confirmed SEBI’s approval of its offshore fund scheme.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to non-responsiveness to statutory notices and the failure to produce evidence during the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising M. Bala Ganesh ( Account member ) and Saktijith Dey ( Judicial member ) Addressing the issue of the assessee’s claim about the absence of adequate opportunity, assessment was unawed. The available documentation indicates that the assesse has consistently defaulted in every stage of the process, considering this established pattern of non-compliance, there is no compelling reason to challenge the decision of the first appellate authority. As a result, the grounds presented by the assesse are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has nullified the penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing that loan payments are executed through bank transfers rather than bearer cheques.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising N.K Billaiya ( Account member) and Astha Chandra ( Judicial member) concluded that the assessee contended that initiating penalty proceedings were illegal and invalid as no proceedings for A.Y. 2014-15 were pending. The CIT (A) clarified that the return for A.Y. 2014-15, filed on 12.03.2015, had been processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order under section 143(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not include findings by the then Assessing Officer ( AO ) regarding the applicability of section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
