ITAT Weekly Round-Up

28 March 2022 10:17 AM IST

ITAT – Weekly – Round Up – Taxscan

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from March 21^st to March 2tth, 2022.

Sh. Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs JDIT

The Jaipur bench of the ITAT has held that although there is a presumption that “Ignorance of Law cannot be a defense,” there is no such presumption that everyone knows the Law. The Tribunal held that there is no finding of the AO based on some contradictory evidence to disapprove that explanation offered by the assessee was false or the assessee was not able to substantiate the explanation furnished or fails to prove that such explanation is not bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income has not been disclosed by him.

Yogesh Parashram Pangarkar vs The Income Tax Officer

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently confirmed a penalty issued under section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds of not maintaining books of accounts as mentioned in the Income Tax Rules 6F.

M/s. Hariom Associates vs ITO

The Pune bench of the ITAT has held that the income from the sale of land purchased by a partnership firm for the purpose of business and declared the same as fixed assets in the books shall constitute capital gain under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Deloitte Haskins & Sells vs Additional Director of Income Tax

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata bench, while allowing relief to Deloitte Haskins & Sells, has held thatthe contributions made after the statutory due date shall be allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Mr. Yuvaraj vs The Income Tax Officer

The ITAT, Kolkata bench has recently held that the Commissioner, while invoking his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot point out the issues other than the issue taken up by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings.

Jhodinda Bhojpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd vs ITO

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur bench has held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be solely based on the addition without proving the two requirements of the provisions.

DCIT Central-II vs Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal

The Indore Bench of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that statement recorded under section 133A of the Income Tax Act by themselves have no evidentiary value and upheld the deletion of additional income by CIT (A).

ACIT vs M/s. Rm.K.V. Silks

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai bench has held that the amount of expenses incurred on a leased property in order to produce the right ambience to attract customers shall be allowable as the same would amount to revenue exependiture.

ACIT vs M/s. Ankur Foundation P. Ltd

The Chennai bench of the ITAT has held that the amount of compensation paid to the developer on termination of a Joint Development Agreement cannot be claimed as “Project Expenditure” under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal bench comprising Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM held that the project did not materialize and hence the amount paid by the assessee was claimed as project expenses. The expenses were incurred in the regular course of business of property development. Another pertinent fact brought to the notice was that the assessee took steps to collect the amount from the owners and succeeded in realizing the same. The same was offered to tax in AY 2011-12.

ACIT vs Armee Infotech

The Ahmedabad bench of the ITAT has held that the expenses towards gifts purchased for sales promotion shall be allowable as deduction even if the assessee failed to provide the list of the recipients.

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Parsons Brinckershoff India Pvt. Ltd

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a penalty order under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the non-deduction of tax was due to non-receipt of invoices.

M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd vs DCIT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai bench has held that the warranty obligation being part and parcel of sales transactions cannot be treated as technical services for the purpose of TDS obligation.

Land Acquisition Office vs DCIT, (TDS)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi bench has held that the Land Acquisition Office is not liable to pay TDS under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the payment of Interest to land-owners on the amount of enhanced compensation awarded by Court.

Garrison Engineer vs JCIT (TDS)

The Agra bench of the ITAT, comprising of Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Sh. Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member has held that the late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the failure to file TDS/TCS returns prior to 1^st June 2015.

M/s Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

The ITAT Bangalore, while granting relief to M/s Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt Ltd, held that the consumable tools are revenue in nature and therefore, deduction is allowable as expenditure in the profit and loss account.

M/s. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT

While disposing of 47 appeals, the Agra ITAT, on Monday ruled that the amendment in provision 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Finance Act, 2021 whereby the Government denied the deduction of contribution towards ESI and PF beyond the due date and before the filing of income tax returns will not be applicable to matters prior to 2021.

M/s.Google India Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bangalore bench of the ITAT has granted relief to Google India by allowing deduction section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act in respect of ESI/PF contributions paid after the due date.

Neelam Hospital vs The ITO

In an assessee-favoring ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chandigarh bench has directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits since the assessee was aggrieved with the order dismissing the appeal based on a delay of 252 days.

M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed to use Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) as most appropriate method and held that, warranty expenditure is allowable. The Coram of Sri. Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member has held that “as the submissions advanced are on identical facts that has already been considered by this Tribunal, for preceding assessment years as well as assessment year 2015-16, respectfully following the above view, we direct the TPO to replace the TNMM with CUP as most appropriate method”. Further held by the Tribunal that “based on the above consistent view taken by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding and subsequent assessment years relying of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt.Ltd (supra), we hold that provision for warranty expenditure is allowable”.

Shri Jeyaraman Senthil Kumar vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

While disposing a bunch of appeals, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai bench has quashed the orders of the first appellate authorities since the assessee failed to appear during the proceedings due to Covid-19 pandemic.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Global Softech Ltd

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the State authorities and the direct and indirect tax departments cannot question the resolution plan as per section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

M/s.Shri Shanmugar Services vs The Income Tax Officer

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Customs House Agent bound to pay TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payment to CFS Agents.

Sh. Sanjay Jain vs PCIT

The Chandigarh bench of the ITAT, while quashing a revisional order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has held that the Principal Commissioner failed to conduct an independent inquiry before invoking such power.

Shri P. Divagar vs The Income Tax Officer

The Chennai bench of the ITAT has deleted a re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in respect of disclosure of all relevant materials required for assessment fully and truly.

M/s.Oasis Textiles Ltd vs DCIT

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while quashing the income tax proceedings, held that since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has overriding effect over the income tax proceedings, the department cannot have any claim since the company becomes non-existent once the liquidation process is completing.