This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from April 21 to May 4.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ordered a reconsideration, directing fresh adjudication. This decision comes as submissions regarding Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) deductions under Sections 194J or 194C for payments related to X-Ray and CVC machine maintenance were not considered.
The bench of G.S.Pannu ( Vice President ) and C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) restored this matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file all the evidence to support their contentions before the AO. All the issues in the appeal are left open for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal for AY 2019-20 is also restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that depreciation must be removed while calculating net margin. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of TPO/AO for further calculation of TP adjustment by considering the direction of the Bench.
A two-member bench comprising Dr Manish Borad, Accountant Member &Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member viewed that the depreciation should be removed for calculation of net profit margin and cash PLI is the justified method. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of TPO/AO for further calculation of TP adjustment by considering the direction of the Bench.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has allowed Union Bank of India to claim deduction under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) for dividends received from cooperative bank shares.
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Mahavir Singh observed that the assessee is a multi-state cooperative society, registered under the multi-state cooperative Societies Act, 2012 at Chennai. The members of the assessee’s society are all employees of Union Bank of India. Assessee extended credit facilities like surety loans, festival loans, calamity loans etc. to its members. Assessee received Rs.3, 77,800/- as dividend from shares held in Chennai Central Co-operative Bank
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed appeal citing a lack of proper explanation for the 726-day delay. The appeal is time barred by 726 days. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2021 and assessee has disclosed the date of service of the impugned order on 07.09.2021 as per form no.36
A single member bench of Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) found no reasonable cause as it seemed that this is a cooked story and the assessee could not file any supporting materials like medical certificate i.e. family members were affected by covid per and for how long. Even otherwise there is a long delay of 726 days which was not properly explained.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the failure to prove the genuineness of the share purchase transaction claim and the creditworthiness of the invested company.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial member ) and Om Prakash Kant ( Accountant member ) uphold the finding of the CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee on the merit of the addition are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that Short Term Capital Loss ( STCL ) offsettable against Short Term Capital Gain ( STCG ) across assets regardless of tax rate disparity under Section 70 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial member ) and Amarjith Singh ( Accountant member ) observed that the provisions of section 70(2), STCL arising from any asset can be set off against STCG arising from any other asset under a similar computation made irrespective of different rate of tax. Therefore following the decision of ITAT, the bench allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gain from sale of equity shares not taxable as per Article 13 (4) of India – Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Kul Bharat ( Judicial member) and Dr. B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member) concluded that will not preclude the assessee from claiming benefit under Article 13(4) of the Treaty when the capital gain clearly falls within the ambit of Article 13(4) of the Treaty. ITAT allowed the assessee’s additional ground and held that the capital gain derived by the assessee from the sale of equity shares is not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled deduction cannot be claimed by Assessee when employees’ contribution not being paid to the respective Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees State Insurance Act ( ESI ) Acts.
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manish Board (Accountant member) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) concluded that according to the revenue there was no debate on this point at the level of the assessing officer. At the time litigation was raised to the level of CIT (A), the Supreme Court had decided the position of law. Therefore, there was no merit in this fold of contention also. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the source for deposits made during the demonetization period has been substantiated.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial member) and M.S.Pathmavathy S (Accountant member) viewed that the assessee has discharged the onus of substantiating the source for the deposits made in SBN during demonetisation period and that the addition made by the revenue without disputing the business income of the assessee is not tenable. In view of the above discussion, ITAT considered that the addition of Rs 33,40,327/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Rs. 52.9 lakhs as there is no Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) liability, given that the property sold was agricultural land, and the computation of total income has been submitted as evidence.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) and George George K (Vice President) found the assessee had not declared any admitted tax. On the facts of the instant case, assessee had claimed the receipt is for sale of agricultural land and not liable for capital gains. Since assessment has been completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of INR 60.1 Lakhs after the appellant’s bank statements confirmed full payment and compliance with Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amarjit Singh ( Accountant Member ) and Rahul Chaudhary ( Judicial Member ) concluded that the conditions laid down in second proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act were also satisfied the addition of Rs.60,19,506/- made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and is therefore, deleted. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the adjustment regarding the arm’s length pricing of export commission payment against Honda subsidy.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Pradip Kumar Kediya (Accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (Vice President) allowed this ground of the appeal and thereby directed the transfer pricing officer/assessing officer to delete the adjustment on account of the arm’s-length price of the export commission payment of ₹495,348,444/-. ITAT respectfully followed the earlier decision of the coordinate Bench and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The addition is deleted. Accordingly, Appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has disallowed the taxpayer’s claim under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the taxpayer failed to construct a residential house within the stipulated three-year period from the date of transfer of the old house.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member) found no error or infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in denying the benefit of deduction to the assessee under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, accordingly, ITAT found no merit in the Ground of Appeal of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing denial of the opportunity to be heard.
the two-member tribunal bench, consisting of N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), nullified the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case to the AO. The AO was directed to furnish the assessee with a copy of Mr. Nem Chand Gupta’s statement, obtained by the Investigation Wing, along with any other relevant material utilized against the assessee. Furthermore, the tribunal mandated that witnesses whose statements were relied upon should be made available for cross-examination. The assessee will be granted ample opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Revenue’s appeal deemed allowed for statistical purposes
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that tax treaty benefits cannot be denied solely based on the mobile number provided in the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) showing fraud in True caller.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial member) hold that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was liable to benefit provided under Article 24 which provides that Government of one contracting state shall be exempt from tax in other contracting states in respect of any income derived by such income from that other contracting states. Since Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has been specifically mentioned in Article 24(2)(b)(ii), therefore, none of its income is taxable in India. Accordingly, charging of interest of Rs. 365.40 crores was held to be non-taxable in India. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) credit and self-assessment tax, as the Department of Inland Revenue Sri Lanka certifies the assessee’s gross remuneration.
The bench of M.S Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member) and Amarjith Singh ( Accountant member) was directed to allow the credit of TDS amount and self-assessment tax to the assessee after examination of the copy of tax residency certificate and copy of tax certificate as referred above submitted by the assessee. Therefore, both the appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the failure to prove the genuineness of the share purchase transaction claim and the creditworthiness of the invested company.
the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) uphold the finding of the CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee on the merit of the addition are dismissed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal citing a lack of proper explanation for the 726-day delay. The appeal is time barred by 726 days. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2021 and assessee has disclosed the date of service of the impugned order on 07.09.2021 as per form no.36.
A single member bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) found no reasonable cause as it seemed that this is a cooked story and the assessee could not file any supporting materials like medical certificate i.e. family members were affected by covid per and for how long. Even otherwise there is a long delay of 726 days which was not properly explained. Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/delay-of-726-days-not-properly-explained-itat-dismisses-appeal-read-order/395669/
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
