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 7th July 2024 to 12th July 2024.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the licence fees received by the assessee towards live transmissions of cricket matches held in Australia are not taxable in India as royalty.
The two-member bench of G.S. Pannu (Vice President) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) have observed the rights were merely for advertising, communications, and sales and marketing campaigns showcasing the Sponsor’s association with the Big Bash League (BBL). The use of intellectual property rights like the logo of the assessee or BBL, was incidental to the objective of the promotion of BBL and the products of the sponsor.
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that as the assessee institute had remained divested of sufficient opportunity to put forth its case and furnish the requisite details in the course of the proceedings before the CIT( Exemption ), the matter need re-adjudication.
A two member bench of Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member observed that as the assessee institute had remained divested of sufficient opportunity to put forth its case and furnish the requisite details in the course of the proceedings before the CIT( Exemption ), the matter need re adjudication.
In a recent case, the Kolkata Bench of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that mere suspicion cannot be a ground for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.It was viewed that when the assessee has fulfilled all the three ingredients i.e., identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transaction by producing documentary evidence then the unsecured loan stands explained.
A two-member bench of Dr Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member viewed that mere suspicion cannot be a ground for issuance of notice. Further ,observed that there is nothing in the record brought by the AO to establish any connection of the assessee with Mukesh Banka, there is no transaction made by and with Mukesh Banka as the statement of bank account details reveals. The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Unexplained money under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the amount was the old loan converted into share allotment.
A two-member bench of Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr Manish Borad, Accountant Member observed that the documents referred by the Counsel for the assessee are enough to prove on record that no fresh share application money was received by the assessee during the year under consideration.
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) sets aside income tax reassessment completed without providing copy of the reasons. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[ CIT(A) ] had not considered the adjournment request of the assessee neither additional submission nor legal grounds / additional grounds assailed by the assessee. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, the appellant assessee filed an original return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,57,520/- and notice under section 148 was issued by Income Tax Assessing Officer ( AO ) against which the appellant filed a return declaring the same income as declared in the original return. The AO passed an order under Section 147 of Income Tax Act assessing the income at Rs. 1,44,48,972/- making certain additions/disallowances.
The AO observed that while computing the capital gain, the appellant has shown sale consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,54,19,500/- i.e. value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant specifically requested before AO to refer the matter to DVO for valuation of property but AO did not accept the submission of the appellant. Ignoring the request of the appellant, the AO concluded that, considering the location of property, the value adopted Stamp Valuation Authority is reasonable and not disputable. He made an addition of Rs. 1,31,69,500/- and recomputed the capital gain disclosed by the appellant.
A two member bench of Shri Ravish Sood, JM & Shri Arun Khodpia, AM set aside the order of CIT(A) to his file for fresh adjudication and partly allowed the appeal.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed expenses for liquor, buffet dinner, and government taxes paid to DLF Resort as business promotion expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S. Rifafur Rahman (Accountant member) and Vimal Kumar (Judicial member) found that assessee had arranged a party at Taj Mahal Hotel and paid hotel bill of Rs. 20, 00,557/- consisting of cot of Buffet dinner, liquor and Government taxes etc. The appellant claimed expenditure as revenue exclusively for purpose of business liable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment, stating that the issuance of a notice in the name of a non-existing entity is a non-curable defect under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two members of the tribunal comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) held that when a private limited company has been converted into an LLP and this fact is duly conveyed to the AO during the reassessment proceedings vide the objections filed to reasons recorded, then the notice issued under Section 148 in the name of non-existing company leads to quashing of the reassessment proceedings as this jurisdictional defect is not curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of 3 crore Rupees, finding that the identity of the parties, share applicants, vendors, and promoters, as well as the genuineness of the land transaction, was duly established.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Madumitha Roy ( Judicial member ) and Waseem Ahemed ( Accountant member ) lifted the corporate veil and held that, ultimately, they were still the owners of the land transferred to the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that charging capital gains tax twice on the same land from the execution of the sale deed was impermissible, and consequently quashed the reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial member) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant member) held that the assumption of the jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was illegal and in any case, there cannot be any assessment of capital gains on merits and on law for AY 2011-12. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made on cash deposits during the demonetization period.
The two-member bench of Challa Nagendra Prasad ( Judicial Member ) and Avdhesh Kumar Mishra ( Accountant Member ) has observed that there cannot be any addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act in respect of cash deposits made by the assessee into its bank account as unexplained income in the case of the assessee.
In a recent case related to the allegation of bogus donation, the Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed Income Tax deduction under section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was no material to prove that the check paid for the donation had been ploughed back by way of cash.
The two-member bench of Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) has observed that the AO has not brought any material to disprove the evidence furnished by the assessee concerning the donations it has made to the institutions. There is also no proof to show that the check paid by the assessee has been ploughed back by way of cash to the assessee. It is a settled proposition that the subsequent withdrawal of recognition granted under Section 35(1)(ii) will not be a bar for granting deductions for the donations paid earlier.
In a major ruling, the Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that excise duty exemption for tobacco refuse, by-product in cigarette manufacturing
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ashok Jindal ( Judicial member) and Rajeev Tandon ( Technical member) highlighted that input namely cut tobacco used in the manufacture of dutiable cigarettes and tobacco refuse is a by-product which emerges during manufacturing, the tobacco refuse is not liable to duty.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no reopening can be done after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and wholly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
The two-member bench of Amit Shukla ( Judicial Member ) and Gagan Goyal ( Accountant Member ) has observed that the assessment was already completed under Section 143(3) by the order dated March 20, 2016. The case has been reopened on some Income Tax Business Application ( ITBA ) databases where the parties from whom the assessee made purchases were found to be non-filers of GST, and simply based on this information, the assessment has been reopened under Section 148 to make the addition on account of purchases that already stood examined earlier as they are part of the trading amount. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal held that the time limit for reopening and the assessment as was applicable at the time of issuance of the Income tax reassessment notice is three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
The Chennai ‘A’ Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that penalties under Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied on a company for the receipt and repayment of cash loans from directors due to business exigency.
The two-member bench of Mahavir Singh, Vice President, and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member, rejected the argument that receipt and repayment of cash loans from directors were not covered under Sections 269SS and 269T, noting that no such exceptions are provided in these statutory provisions.
The ITAT concluded that the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were not justified in this case. It allowed the appeals of the assessee, deleting both penalties.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed that interest paid on borrowings to acquire property should be deductible from the sale consideration, ordering the re-computation of capital gains.
A two-member bench of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) concluded that the interest expenditure was allowable in the computations of capital gains. The AO was directed to re-compute the income of the assessee, allowing the impugned interest expenditure. The ITAT allowed the appeal, providing significant relief to the legal heir of the deceased assessee by directing the re-computation of LTCG, inclusive of the interest component as a cost of acquisition.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the addition of a gift, stating that a huge amount cannot be given to anybody for free.
The two member bench of the ITAT comprising George George K ( Vice President ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant member ) rejected the argument of the AR that loan was still outstanding and it was liability of the assessee, since it was not substantiated with cogent evidence. Accordingly ITAT dismissed the grounds of assessee.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has directed the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) to allow the benefit of filing Income Tax Return (ITR) under the New Income Tax Regime, despite Form 10IE being filed, but after the due date.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that filing Form No. 10IE is directory rather than mandatory. Since the form was available to the CPC on the processing date, the CPC should have considered it and allowed the benefits of the New Tax Regime. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CPC to amend the intimation by considering Form No. 10IE, thus granting the assessee the benefits of the New Tax Regime. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
