ITAT Weekly Round Up

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 25th August 2024 to 31st August 2024.

Proper Adjudication and Verification needed for Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act: ITAT Bhavanji Jugaji Thakor vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 955

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for proper verification and adjudication under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 after finding insufficient consideration of unexplained cash credits and investments.

The two-member bench comprising Suchithra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) found that the AO had not properly considered or verified the aspects under Income Tax provisions. The case was remanded for proper adjudication and verification, ensuring the assessee was given a chance to be heard as per natural justice.

No Physical Notice issued before Ex-Parte Proceedings on Unexplained Investment: ITAT remands Matter to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication Kusham vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 956

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made because CIT(A) did not issue a physical notice before ex-parte proceedings on unexplained investment.

The two-member bench comprising Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had appeared and produced relevant documents but the AO refused to entertain. The tribunal further observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without issuing a physical notice of hearing.

Considering the facts and submission, the tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and directed to give adequate opportunity to the assessee for hearing before deciding the matter. Thus, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Date of Sale/Transfer of Shares included in Holding Period Calculation for Capital Gain: ITAT upholds CIT(A) Decision Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Kuwait Investment Authority CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 957

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] decision regarding determining capital gains. The tribunal confirmed the calculation of the holding period for capital gains including the date of sale and transfer of shares.

The two-member bench comprising  Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) observed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) computation of capital gains and the submissions.

Further noted that in the case of Bharti Gupta Ramole (supra), the Delhi High Cout held the date of acquisition and the date of sale are included in determining the holding period for capital gains tax purposes. For example, the asset acquired on 1st January 2023 would complete 12 months at the end of the year i.e. 31st of December,2023.

The tribunal also observed that CBDT Circular No. 704 dated 28/04/1995 and  CBDT Circular No. 768 dated 24/06/1998 where it was clearly stated the determination of the date of transfer and the period of holding of securities held in dematerialised form under section 45(2A) qua transactions in securities. The tribunal found no error or infirmity in the CIT(A) findings. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

AO wrongly made Addition on Property Sale instead of Purchase: ITAT remands Matter due to Incorrect facts Madhulika Mishra vs ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 958

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. This decision followed the assessing officer’s erroneous addition on the sale of the property when, in fact, there was no sale but rather a joint purchase of the property.

The two-member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) and Shri Yogesh Kumar US ( Judicial Member) noted that the revenue wrongly proceeded on misappreciation of facts of a substantive nature.

The bench further observed that the absence of any reply from the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A), led to a flawed reassessment. The tribunal found the assessee’s affidavit credible and directed the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

Source of Cash Deposits duly Explained: ITAT deleted Addition of Rs. 10.75 u/s 69A Dipak Balubhai Patel vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 959

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition made by AO under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench, composed of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), viewed that the AO has erred in invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax  Act and charging tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. The bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed to delete the additions made by AO.

Compensation u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act is Taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) of Income Tax Act: ITAT Shri Bhim Singh vs The I.T.O CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 960

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra ( Accountant Member ) observed that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ghanshyam Das HUF was in 2009 before the amendment. In 2010, the parliament amended clause (viii) of sub-section 2 to section 56 and section 145(B) of the Income Tax Act to bring the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable as “income from other sources.”

The tribunal clarified that the decision cited by the assessee is no longer applicable. Thus, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s decision and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

Routine Support Services not FTS under India-UK DTAA: ITAT Nord Anglia Education Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 961

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently in a case held that routine support services are not to be classified under “Fee for Technical Services” ( FTS ) under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ), and thus are not liable to taxation in India.

Based on its observations, the Tribunal concluded that the payments received by the assessee from PBIL should not be classified as FTS under the India-UK DTAA and, therefore, are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, setting aside the AO’s final assessment order and nullifying the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A of ITA.

Income Tax Notice Sent to Wrong Address: ITAT sets aside Order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act Radha Mohan Education Charitable Trust vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 962

Recently, the Ahmedabad “A” Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA), noting that income tax notices were not sent to the actual address of the assessee.

After considering the submissions and reviewing the available records, the bench of Ms Suchitra Kamble and Mr Narendra Prasad Sinha observed that it was evident that the reasons provided by the assessee trust, through its Chairman, for not appearing before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and for not submitting the required documents, are genuine.

Therefore, the tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for a thorough adjudication, and verification of the documents submitted by the assessee as additional evidence. It was concluded that the assessee should be granted an opportunity for a hearing, following the principles of natural justice.

Thus, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.

Meeting requirements of section 148 of Income Tax Act eliminates need for Separate Notice u/s 143: ITAT Shree Gautam Labdhi Con Corp LLP vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 963

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in a recent case held that meeting statutory requirements of Section 148 of Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) eliminates the need for separate notice under section 143.

In light of the observation, the tribunal held that the requirement for a Section 143(2) notice is not justified in this scenario, as the notice under Section 148 of ITA had already been issued, followed by the relevant statutory notices under Section 142(1) of ITA, to which the assessee also responded. Thus, the ground was dismissed.

Unacknowledged Adjournment Requests: ITAT remands Matter to CIT(A) For Fresh Consideration Fiserv India Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 964

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi recently remanded a matter back to the lower authority for fresh consideration, noting that the assessee’s requests for adjournment were not acknowledged.

The Tribunal directed that the case be restored, and that the CIT(A) provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present the necessary evidence to substantiate its claims.

Proper Enquiry done by AO: ITAT quashes Revision Order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act Posun Credit Co. Op. Society Limited vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 965

The Ahmedabad bench of ITAT quashed the revision passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper enquiry.

The ITAT bench, comprising of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha  (Accountant Member), allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the PCIT cannot be justified for invoking explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, as a proper enquiry was made by the AO.

Relief to EY: ITAT rules Reimbursement of Secondment Charges not FTS under Article 12 of India-USA DTAA Ernst and Young U.S. LLP vs ACIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 966

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently in a case ruled that reimbursement of secondment charges are not Fee For Technical Services ( FTS ) under Article 12 of India -USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA )

The Tribunal also referenced a Delhi High Court decision affirming that in a similar case, the secondees were employees of the Indian entity, and the salary reimbursement by the Indian entity to the foreign entity did not constitute taxable income under the FTS or IPS articles of the tax treaty.

In light of the observations made, the tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, ruling that reimbursement of secondment charges does not constitute FTS under the India-USA DTTA.

No Disallowance u/s 14A when no Exempt Income earned by Assessee: ITAT dismisses Revenue Appeal Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd vs The DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 967

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals [CIT(A)], on expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in the total income (exempt income).

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal bench of Judicial Member T R Senthil Kumar and  Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta upheld the deletion of disallowance by CIT(A) for both Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The disallowance was limited to the amount of exempt income earned in 2015-16, and no disallowance was permitted in 2016-17 since no exempt income was earned.

In short, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year. This reaffirms that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income.

Justice Should Not only be Done but also Appears to be Done: ITAT Remands Disallowance of Purchases Matter to AO for Verification Vayam Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 968

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the disallowance of purchases matter back to the file of the assessing officer for verification ensuring justice should not only be done but also appears to be done.

The two member bench comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Sudhir Pareek (Judicial Member) heard both side’s arguments. The bench highlighted the importance of justice and giving opportunities by stating justice should not only be done but also appears to be done.

In order to provide fair justice, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the assessing officer for verification of the material/ documents produced by the assessee during the proceedings. Thus, the tribunal directed the assessing officer to verify all the documents and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee before deciding the matter.

ITAT Deletes AO’s Excess Stock Addition based on Misinterpretation of Finished Goods Accounting System and Unsubstantiated Sales Evidence Mahavir Transmission Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 969

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the excess stock addition made by the assessing officer due to the misinterpretation of the accounting system of finished goods and unsubstantiated evidence of sales.

The two-member bench comprising B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) and Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the assessing officer made an addition solely based on the statement given by the personnel who were not directly involved in day-to-day stock management and without any corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales.

The tribunal noted that the assessing officer included the entire quantity of finished goods as unaccounted stock without considering the corresponding raw material recorded in the books of accounts. The tribunal further noted that the AO did not dispute the details and reconciliation submitted by the assessee including quantity analysis in this regard.

In the tribunal’s observation, the AO’s additions are due to the misinterpretation of the accounting system of finished goods and solely based on the statements recorded without any corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales. No evidence of any questionable transactions outside the recorded accounts was discovered. Thus, the excess stock addition cannot be sustained. The assessee’s appeal was allowed accordingly.

Income from Staff Loans and Misc. Income directly related to Business is Deemed ‘Business Income, not Income from other Sources: ITAT Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs The ACIT/DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 970

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to classify Rs. 129.03 lacs, including income from staff loans and miscellaneous income, as business income rather than income from other sources, affirming that such income was directly related to the business

The two-member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member) rejected the appeal filed by the revenue.

Treatment of S. 153D Income Tax Act as pari-materia to S. 148 mechanism by AO without Approval: ITAT remands 49 Appeals to CIT(A) ABC Sales Corporation vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 971

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Cochin Bench recently addressed a significant issue in a batch of 49 appeals involving various entities from the ABC Sales Corporation group for improper application of Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to obtain prior approval from a senior officer before making assessments under Sections 153A and 153C, often linked to search and seizure actions.

The tribunal bench of Judicial Member Satbir Singh Godara and Accountant Member Amarjit Singh observed that this approach was flawed, referencing recent judicial precedents that highlighted the necessity of a non-mechanical approval process under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.

Given the significant procedural lapse and in the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to remand all 49 appeals back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) must address the fundamental issue regarding the validity of the approval under Section 153D and reassess all other related grounds raised by the assessees.

Non-Verification of Gifts from Grandmother: ITAT remands Matter for Consideration of Additional Documents Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane vs The ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 972

In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered JAO to consider additional documents filed before CIT(A) due to non – verification of gifts that were received from the assessee’s grandmother.

The bench, Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), by upholding the principle of natural justice, directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ( JAO ) to consider the additional documents that were filed before the CIT(A). The JAO was directed to pass an order in accordance with the law and to give the assessee a fair chance to be heard.

Relief to JN Tata Endowment: ITAT dismisses Revenue Appeal against Income Tax Act Section 11 Exemption Availment ITO (Exemptions) Ward vs JN Tata Endowment CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 973

In a significant ruling, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against JN Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians, affirming the entitlement of the charitable trust to the exemption available under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal bench of Judicial Member Pavan Kumar Gadale and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri observed that the application of income occurred in India when the scholarships were disbursed to the students, regardless of where the education took place.

The ITAT’s dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal reinforces the principle that the geographical location where the charitable activity (education) is executed does not preclude the application of income within India, provided the funds are disbursed within the country.

Additions on Land Purchase: ITAT grants Stay from Recovery of Rs. 45 Lakhs for Pendency of Income Tax Appeal Siddhi Parag Patel vs The ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 974

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal, has granted a stay on the recovery of ₹45 lakhs from the appellant, who is contesting an addition made to her income on account of an alleged unexplained investment in land. The stay is effective for three months or until the disposal of her appeal, whichever comes first.

The tribunal bench after reviewing the submissions and evidence, found merit in the appellant’s case, noting that she had a prima facie strong argument against the addition.

Consequently, the tribunal directed the Income Tax Department to stay the recovery of the outstanding demand and scheduled the hearing of her appeal for September 17, 2024.

This decision offers the appellant temporary relief from the tax demand as she continues to challenge the addition before the tribunal.

Second Chance to Shilp Gravures Ltd: ITAT Remands Matter Back to CIT(A) for Non-Examination of Facts of Deduction Claim u/s 80IA Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shilp Gravures Limited CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 975

In a recent order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad, has remanded the case of Shilp Gravures Ltd back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for further examination. The case involves the company’s claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ₹1.56 crore for the assessment year 2017-18.

However, this being the department’s appeal, the tribunal bench of Judicial Member Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Shri Ramit Kochar,  observed that the CIT(A) did not adequately examine the factual details specific to the assessment year in question, particularly concerning the commissioning of new windmills and the computation of deductions.

It was noted that, “ the ld. CIT(A) whose powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO, did not examine the factual matrix of claim of deduction u/s 80IA , its computation and its allowability thereof.”

Given this oversight, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has sent the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed review of the facts related to the company’s claim under Section 80IA, ensuring that all relevant details are properly considered before a final decision is made.

The appeal of the Revenue was thus allowed for statistical purposes.

No Concrete Evidence on Record for Cash Transaction Limit Violation: ITAT directs AO to delete Income Tax Penalties Atul N. Shah vs JCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 976

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad Bench directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to delete penalties amounting to ₹8.25 lakhs each that were imposed on the appellant in the present case for alleged violations of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal Bench of Accountant Member Smt. Annapurna Gupta, concluded that the penalties were imposed without sufficient evidence and were based on presumptions rather than solid proof.

It was remarked that, “the Revenue Authorities are under obligation to record a clear finding which would leave no scope for doubt and which is based on authentic evidence, that the assessee has committed the offence which was liable to be visited with penalty. That  penalty cannot be imposed on vague and imaginary evidence.”

Therefore, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, ruling in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.

Inaccurate Share Transaction Reporting: ITAT directs Reassessment, upholds PCIT’s Order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act Suresh Kantilal Thakkar vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 977

Recently, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Ahmedabad directed for reassessment of an Assessee’s case, noting that there were inaccuracies in reporting share transactions in the relevant assessment  year. Consequently, the lower authority’s order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) was upheld.

The bench of Mr Siddhartha Nautiyal and Mr Makarand V Mahadeokar, after carefully reviewing  the case  made several observations.

However, the Tribunal directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment, taking into account the discrepancies identified during the proceedings. The AO was instructed to give the Assessee a fair opportunity to present their case and to carry out a de novo assessment in accordance with the law.

AO cannot issue Reassessment Notice: ITAT quashes Order u/s 147 of Income Tax Act Rajesh Kumar vs ACIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 978

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ) quashed a reassessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ruling that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot issue a reassessment notice while the original return is still pending.

The two-member bench of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Avdhesh Mishra (Accountant Member) concluded that, since the Revenue’s appeal was no longer relevant due to the ruling, it was dismissed and the grounds of appeal were left open.

Deduction u/s 54 of IT Act allowable even if Old Sale Proceeds not Reinvested in New Asset Acquisition: ITAT Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya vs The DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 979

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently ruled that deduction under section 54 of Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) is allowable even if proceeds from sale of old property are not reinvested in the acquisition of new asset/property.

The ITAT bench comprising of Mr Senthil Kumar and Mr Narendra Prasad Sinha, upon reviewing the facts and the legal provisions,  referred to the specific language of Section 54(1) of ITA which clearly stipulates that the exemption is available if the new residential property is purchased within one year before or two years after the sale, or if it is constructed within three years after the sale.

It was concluded that the exemption is based on the acquisition of a new residential property within the allowed timeframe, irrespective of whether the funds used are the direct proceeds from the sale.

ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee,  directing the AO to grant the deduction under Section 54 of ITA and to delete the addition made to the assessee’s income.

Prepaid Finance Charges Deductible in Year of Payment, Amortization Not Necessary: ITAT Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 980

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a recent case ruled that prepaid finance charges made for business purposes are deductible in the year of payment, and thus amortization is not necessary.

The division bench of Mr Mahavir Singh and Mr SR Raghunatha, after considering both sides, noted that the key issue was whether the prepaid finance charges could be fully claimed in the year of payment or should be distributed across the loan period.

The tribunal observed that in a previous case involving the same assessee for assessment year 2011-12, it was ruled that finance charges should be allowed as a deduction in the year of payment, even if they were treated as deferred revenue expenditure or prepaid expenditure in the books of accounts.

In light of these observations it was held that deduction on prepaid finance charges in the year of payment are allowable, and pro rata amortization is not necessary.

 Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted and the appeal of assessee was allowed on this ground.

CIT (A) cannot Dismiss Appeal for Non-Prosecution u/s 250 (6): ITAT orders for Fresh-Adjudication Shreenath Developers vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 981

The two member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad has ruled that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the merits of the case, and has accordingly set aside the case to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication based on its merits.

The bench comprising Ramit Kochar ( Accountant member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member) concluded that the CIT(A) had erred both in law and in fact by summarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal without addressing the grounds raised or discussing the merits of the case. Consequently, ITAT set aside the case, directing the CIT (A) to re-adjudicate on the merits, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case.

AO’s failure to Investigate Agricultural Income, Land Purchase Sources, and Unexplained Bank Deposits: ITAT upholds PCIT Order Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga vs The Principal CIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 982

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax‘s (PCIT) order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiries and verifications during the original assessment proceedings, and concurred with the PCIT’s finding that the AO’s order was erroneous due to the lack of investigation into exempt agricultural income, the source of payments for land purchases, and cash deposits in the bank account.

The tribunal reviewed the arguments and materials on record, and the two-member bench, consisting of Suchithra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar, observed that the initial Section 263 notice was based on audit objections that were not accepted by the AO, and that the jurisdictional AO’s proposal for Section 263 action specifically referenced audit objections related to exempt agricultural income and associated expenses.

Accordingly, ITAT dismissed the Assessee’s appeal and upheld the PCIT’s order.

Assessment Proceedings should be conducted u/s 153C instead of Section 147 when material is found on Third-Party Premises: ITAT Sai Krupa Developers vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 983

In a recent judgment, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that, based on material found at a third person’s premises, assessment proceedings should be conducted under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act instead of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

In the present case, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ramit Kochar (Accountant member) and Siddartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) observed that the additions to the assessment were solely based on documents found at Sankalp Group, and since these additions were based entirely on material unearthed from a third party’s premises, the Department should have proceeded under Section 153C, following the appropriate process outlined in that section, rather than under Section 148.

 The reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid as they were conducted without following the correct procedural path under Section 153C. The subsequent revisionary proceedings were also based on an invalid order and lacked jurisdiction. Judicial precedents, including the decisions in ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Capital Gain Exemption Shall Not Be Denied Merely Due To Claim Made Additionally: ITAT The Income Tax Officer vs Rahul Kumar Jain CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 984

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the capital gain exemption shall not be denied just because the claim was made additionally in the revision assessment.

The two-member bench comprising Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) and Jamlappa D Battull (Accountant Member) observed that the issue in this case is directly covered by the decision of this tribunal in ITO vs. Shri Rajavikram. In that case, the tribunal granted an exemption under section 54B to a co-owner of the land stating AO cannot deny an exemption just because the assessee raised an additional claim later. In the absence of any development or new material, the tribunal has no reason to decide the issue on a different stand.

The tribunal decided the issue in favor of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.

AO’s Share Capital/Premium Addition Invalid Due to Absence of Incriminating Evidence in Search: ITAT DCIT vs Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 985

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the addition made by the assessing officer for share capital/premium due to the absence of incriminating evidence found during the search.

The tribunal referred to Delhi High Court cases where it was ruled that a disclosure under Section 132(4) does not qualify as incriminating material. No incriminating material was found during the search regarding non-genuine share capital or share premium. Thus, the addition was not sustainable. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

ITAT quashes Income Tax Notice & Order issued by AO u/s 148 without Jurisdiction Pankaj Suresh Rach vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 986

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Bench, Mumbai quashed the Income Tax Notice and Order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction.

The ITAT Bench comprising of Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member and Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member observed that based on the facts and the two judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, the court is of the view that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is without the jurisdiction and hence set aside making the resultant re-assessment order null and void. Since the re-assessment order has been quashed, we find it not necessary to delve into the merits of the case. Accordingly the ground argued by the assessee is allowed.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Respondent, Income Tax Officer, Mumbai represented by Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R.

ITAT grants Trust Second chance to Prove Genuineness of Activities, remands Registration Application to CIT(E) Aacharya Shri Hira laxmi Guru Jain Gaushala Sansthan Devliya Kala Via Chapaneri vs CIT Exemption CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 987

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )  granted  Trust a second chance to prove the genuineness of its activities and remanded the registration application under Section 12AB of Income Tax Act,1961,back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)).

The two-member bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant) set aside the order rejecting the trust’s registration under section 12AB of the act and  giving the assessee another chance to address the issues before the CIT(E).

Relief for BSNL Employees’ Co-operative Society: ITAT grants Section 80P(2) Deduction BSNL Employees Co-operative vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 988

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled in favour of BSNL Employees’ Co-operative Society, granting it the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Keshav Dubey ( Accountant Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Judicial Member ), after considering the rival submissions, acknowledged that the revenue authorities had previously denied the deduction based on a detailed analysis under Section 80P(4) read with Section 2(24) of the Income tax law. However, the ITAT found that the society, formed under the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959, solely for the benefit of BSNL employees, did not operate as a bank and was therefore eligible for the Section 80P(2) deduction.

The appellate tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue and decide on the deduction claim in light of the Tribunal’s ruling reference. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes

ITAT directs AO to recompute Penalty on Incorrect Income Tax Deduction u/s 54EC Smt. Maya K. Dharwani vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 989

In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the assessing officer to re-compute the quantum of penalty on incorrect income tax deduction under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench, comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ), directed the AO to recompute the penalty on the incorrect income tax deduction under Section 54EC. The bench also held that while computing the penalty, relief of Rs. 30,00,000 should be granted, thus reducing the penalty amount accordingly.

Overreach beyond Limited Scrutiny Jurisdiction: ITAT quashes PCIT’s Order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act M/s Shail Gas Pvt. Ltd vs Pr. CIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 990

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITAT )  by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) noting that the order overreached beyond limited scrutiny jurisdiction.

The tribunal referred to several judicial precedents to support its conclusions. It noted that the PCIT, while exercising suo motu revisionary powers under Section 263 of the tax statute, could not exceed the scope of the issues originally subject to limited scrutiny.

Additionally, the ITAT emphasized that any direction issued by the PCIT without a proper show cause notice or without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard was invalid.

Consequently, the ITAT quashed the order passed by the PCIT, upholding the original assessment order issued by the AO.

Subscription Fees from cloud Services not Taxable as Royalty in India under India-Ireland DTAA: ITAT GoTo Technologies Ireland Unlimited vs ACIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 991

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi held that subscription fees from cloud services are not taxable as royalty in India under the India -Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)

Given that there had been no changes in the factual or legal circumstances since those decisions, the bench of Mr BRR Kumar and Ms Madhumita Roy ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made to the assessee’s income . As a result, the appeal was allowed in its entirety.

Relevant Information Sought by AO Not Provided by Assessee: ITAT Restores Matter to AO for Fresh Adjudication Afzalgarh Mahavidyalya vs Income Tax Office CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 992

Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi restored a matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] for fresh adjudication as ex parte order was passed without properly representing the assessee.

The tribunal held that the assessee upon services of the notice from AO shall respond to the same and furnish necessary documents/information as sought by the AO. In result, the appeal was allowed and the CIT(A)’s order was set aside.

Absence of Incriminating Material: ITAT rules out Addition on Completed Assessment Govindam Export vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 993

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled out additions on completed assessments due to the absence of incriminating material. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not addressed the specific issues remanded by the High Court and merely repeated previous findings.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. S. Seethalakshmi and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai noted that, despite the High Court’s direction to re-examine the genuineness of transactions as per M/s. Gems Paradise, the AO merely repeated earlier additions without addressing the High Court’s issues. The CIT(A) also upheld the previous findings without considering the High Court’s directions.

Search Assessment shall be Computed u/s 153 of Income Tax, not u/s 147: ITAT quashes Assessment order Shri Karshni Metals Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 994

In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the assessment order, clarifying that the both the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law by ignoring the established legal position that any material found during a search belonging to a person other than the one searched should be assessed under Section 153C, not under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench carefully considered the matter and observed that the judgment cited by the Departmental Representative from the Madras High Court had already been reviewed by the  Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nishit Gupta Vs. ACIT on March 19, 2024. They determined that the jurisdictional prerequisites for invoking Sections 147-148 were not satisfied, as there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truthfully disclose material facts. As a result, the specific provisions of Section 153C were deemed to take precedence over the general provisions of Section 147, leading to the allowance of the assessee’s appeal.

Top Stories No Incriminating Evidence Found in Search, Unexplained Cash Credit Declared Invalid: ITAT upholds CIT (A) Order DCIT Central Circle vs Frost Falcon Distilleries Ltd CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 995

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], stating that no incriminating evidence was found during the search, leading to the unexplained cash credit addition of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- being declared invalid, and concluded that the assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not have been completed; hence, the findings of the CIT(A) require no interference.

The bench observed that the CIT (A)’s findings could not be rebutted by the departmental representative, who failed to present any documents from the record or paper book to challenge the factual findings. The Departmental Representative’s case was based on inferences drawn from investigation reports related to other individuals, while the assessment of the assessee was completed under Section 153A(1)(b) read with Section 143(3)  of the Income Tax  Act. Therefore, the two-member bench, comprising M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member), concluded that in the absence of any incriminating evidence, the assessments could not have been completed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. As such, the CIT (A)’s findings required no interference, and the grounds raised by the revenue were deemed unsubstantial, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Tax Implications Triggered only upon Actual Sale or Transfer of Asset, no Additions shall be made based on Anticipated Future Benefits: ITAT Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs Inder Jaggi CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 996

In a recent Judgement, the Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) ruled that tax implications arise only when the asset is actually sold or transferred, no additions can be made based solely on accounting entries anticipating future benefits.

The tribunal noted that the CIT (A) had correctly found that the tax implications of the gift would arise only when the asset is actually sold or transferred. The cost of acquisition should be determined based on applicable provisions at that time, not based on notional entries in the books of accounts. The tribunal upheld the CIT (A)’s decision to delete the addition, concluding that the AO’s anticipatory assumptions regarding future tax benefits from the recorded value in the books were misplaced. The tribunal found no merit in the revenue’s arguments based on hypothetical future events. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

Receipt of ‘On-Money’ Received from Sale of Flats cannot be Taxed: ITAT deletes Addition Kalyan Development Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 997

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the receipt of ‘on-money’ from the sale of flats cannot be taxed, leading to the deletion of the addition.

Since the addition pertains to the “receipt of money” from the sale of flats by the assessee and these amounts do not represent the actual receipts in the hands of the assessee, they cannot be subjected to tax. Consequently, the two-member bench of the tribunal, consisting of Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), deleted the addition, and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Relief to Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait: ITAT Allows Deduction from Book Profit for Withdrawn Reserves Credited to P&L Account u/s 115JB Bank of Bahrain vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 998

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has provided relief to the Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait by ruling that when reserves or provisions are created in a year where the assessee has increased the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to reduce the amount withdrawn from such reserves if it is credited to the profit and loss account in that year.

Further the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Renu Jauhri ( Accountant member) and Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial member)  ultimately decided to remand the matter back to the A.O. for a fresh examination of the details submitted by the assessee, specifically whether the provisions were properly accounted for in the book profits as required by the law. All issues raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeals were remanded for further consideration.

ITAT Allows TCS Credit to Taxpayer Despite License Held by Third Party Due to Absence of Contradictory Evidence M/s. Dolphin Bar and Restaurant vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 999

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed Tax collected at source ( TCS ) credits to the assessee despite the license was not in his name but the third party, there was no contradictory evidence that proved otherwise.

The two-member bench comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) noted that every year this issue was considered and allowed in favor of the assessee based on the declaration given by the license holder. On the other hand, the revenue could not produce any contrary evidence.

The tribunal directed AO to allow the assessee’s claim after due verification of the declaration statement by the license holder. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Agriculturists not required to Maintain Books of Accounts u/s 44AA: ITAT deletes S. 69 Addition Shri Ganesh Vasudeva Shet vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1000

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deletes the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing Section 44AA, which fortifies agriculturists is not required to maintain books of accounts.

The two-member bench comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) referred to section 44A of the Income Tax Act which fortifies the agriculturist is not required to maintain books of accounts.

It further noted that the revenue did not bring any record to prove any other source of income other than agricultural income. As the revenue had failed to produce anything contrary, we find no reason to disbelieve the assessee’s submissions. Thus, the tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the addition made. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.

ITAT rejects 25% Addition for Unverifiable Purchases u/s 153A of Income Tax Act citing Incorrect GP Rate Estimation Govindam Export vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1001

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) rejected the 25% addition for unverifiable purchases under Section 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 citing incorrect Gross Profit (GP) rate estimation.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) decided that no additional amount should be added for unverifiable purchases and instructed the AO to remove the addition for the AYs 1998-99 to 2003-04.

Sale Consideration not Received by Assessee: ITAT upholds Deletion of Additions DCIT vs Vaishali Pigments Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1002

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in a recent ruling upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer as amounts with regard to the sale of a certain plot were not received by the assessee.

The bench consisted of R. K. Panda (Vice President) and Shri Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member)  dismissed the appeal filed by revenue with regard to this ground of appeal.

CIT(A)’s Non-Speaking Order denies Assessee Fair Hearing: ITAT directs Reassessment ANITA DABAS vs ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1003

In a recent case, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the non- speaking order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] denied the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard.

The bench of Mr Saktijit Dey and Mr Rifaur Rahman, after examining the facts of the case , observed that it was apparent that the Assessee had not been given adequate opportunity to present her case during the assessment proceedings, or before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal urged the Assessee to cooperate fully with the AO during this fresh adjudication process. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, giving the assessee another opportunity to defend her position.

Lower Authorities passed Orders Overlooking SC Precedents: ITAT directs AO to Reconsider 80P deduction under Income Tax Arjuna Souhardha Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1004

In a recent ruling, the Banglore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside orders passed by lower authorities noting that while passing the said orders, the lower authorities overlooked relevant principles laid out in Supreme Court precedents.

The AO was instructed to consider relevant decisions of the Tribunal, particularly those related to the allowance of interest on fixed deposits under Income tax Section 80P(2)(d), ensuring that such claims are considered under the appropriate legal provisions, including Section 57 of the income tax legislature for expenditure. In result, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the case back to the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court’s rulings and the Tribunal’s directions.

Jewelry Addition u/s 69B by Assuming Equal Ownership Among Cohabitants Invalid: ITAT Ms. Ankita Aggarwal vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1005

In a recent case, the Delhi ‘A’ bench of the  Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that income tax additions made on jewelry under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did so by assuming equal ownership among cohabitants without actually verifying who owns how much of the jewelry.

The tribunal noted that the jewelry was found in a shared residential premise, cohabited by multiple family members. Thus, It was unclear on what basis the AO had equally distributed the value of the jewelry among the three women, especially when affidavits had been submitted indicating otherwise.

Given these circumstances, the ITAT concluded that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable and directed the AO to delete the addition related to the alleged undisclosed investment in jewelry.

Appeal Before CIT(A) cannot be dismissed on Technical Grounds without Sufficient Reason for Non-Payment of Advance Tax: ITAT Banyan Tree Diagnositc vs ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1006

The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )  ruled that an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] cannot be dismissed solely on technical grounds for non-payment of advance tax  without a valid reason.

The two-member bench comprising Keshav Dubey(Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) set aside the CIT(A)’s decision, restored the appeal for reconsideration, and allowed it, concluding that dismissing the appeal solely on technical grounds without a valid reason was inappropriate.

ITAT Condones 288-Day delay due to Notices sent to Wrong Email ID, Remands Stock undervaluation matter to CIT(A) Hindustan Marble & Granite vs DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1007

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 288-day delay due to the notices being sent to the wrong email ID. The Tribunal remanded the Stock undervaluation matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication.

The two-member bench comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that the delay in filing the appeal was explained by the assessee was reasonable. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court case of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., where the court laid down six principles.

The tribunal emphasized that the cause of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Therefore, the tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the issues back to the file of CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT invalidates Reassessment under Income Tax Act as Alleged Transaction already shown on Return Filed: Calcutta HC dismisses Appeal PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5, KOLKATA vs M/S. FOUNTAIN VANIJYA PVT.LIMITED(NOW MERGED WITH M/S.ASHIANA GOODS PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1008

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal on finding that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the reassessment order passed under Income Tax Act, 1961 as alleged transaction was already shown on return filed.

The division bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya dismissed the appeal as there is no question of law much less substantial questions of law arising for consideration in the appeal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates