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 from 14 December 2024 to 20 December 2024.

Section 14A Disallowance: ITAT Directs Restricting Disallowance to Rs. 12 Lakh, Following Previous Year’s Ruling [Read Order] Rasna Private Limited 905 vs ACIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1570

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the matter for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, directing the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be restricted to Rs. 12 lakhs, based on errors in the CIT(A)’s order.

The two-member bench comprising Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) set aside the matter for AY 2016-17, partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to Rs. 12 lakhs. In Conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the disallowance under section 14A of the Act restricted to Rs. 12 lakhs.

Reassessment of Alleged Bogus LTCG/STCG Based on AO’s Assumptions u/s 143(3) of Income Tax: ITAT remands case to CIT(A) Trishla Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1571

In a recent case, the Ranchi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that mere allegations of fake transactions cannot be the basis of further judicial proceedings. If any allegation arises against a party, it should be investigated in depth.

The Tribunal consisting of Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) held that the modus operandi adopted by the CIT(A) is not satisfactory as no proper investigation had been done and to uphold the objective of justice directed to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide on the matter after considering all of the issues in depth. The tribunal also directed the assessee to comply with the investigation to be taken up by the CIT(A) and produce all necessary documents before the CIT(A) to make its case.

Karta of Hindu Undivided Family Wins Partial Relief at ITAT: Tribunal Sets Aside Addition for Re-calculation [Read Order] Kothari Sanjay Manilal vs The DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1572

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while partly allowing the appeal, held that a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is entitled to capital gain exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on investment in new residential property.

The two-member Bench composed of T R Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha(Accountant Member) held that the AO’s approach was incorrect because the assessee did not sell the land directly but relinquished rights. Therefore, the sale consideration should be based on what the assessee received from the societies (Rs. 6,16,49,843). The AO had wrongly applied the sale rate at which the societies sold the land.

Delay in Filing of Form 67 not ground to Deny Relief u/s 90 of Income Tax: ITAT [Read Order] Ratanlal Bhura vs DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1573

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that filing of form 67 is not mandatory in 128 (9) of Income Tax Rules,1962, and delay in filing of form 67 cannot be a ground for denial of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey ( Judicial Member ) and Sanjay Awasthi ( Accountant member ) referenced Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay vs ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru which held that rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules does not provide any consequences for non-compliance of filing form 67 and therefore it is not mandatory but only directory in nature.

No Incriminating Material Found against Oswal Fab Knits: ITAT deletes Additions [Read Order] Oswal Fab Knits Ltd vs The DCIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1574

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Chandigarh has dismissed additions made against Oswal Fab Knits Ltd. and related entities by the Income Tax Department.

The tribunal upheld the principle that mere re-evaluation of existing records cannot justify additions in cases of completed assessments without substantial evidence of wrongdoing.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal as Tax Effect Falls Below Rs. 60 Lakhs, in Accordance with CBDT [Read Order] DCIT vs Coforge Ltd. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1575

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, and by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular, appeals in which the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 60 lakhs will be dismissed.

The ITAT, comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial Member )noted that in the present case, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised by the Revenue was below Rs. 60 lakhs. The bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Inapplicability of 12A(1)(ba) Amendment for 2017-18 AY: ITAT grants Temple Trust Exemptions u/s 11&12 [Read Order] Shri Siddhanath Mahadev Temple Trust vs The CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1577

The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in the case of Shri Siddhanath Mahadev Temple, held that the temple trust is entitled to tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act  1961. The assessee-appellant, Shri Siddhanath Mahadev Temple, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commisiioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions ) [CIT(E)] dates 28.03.2024 under Section 263 of the Act.

The tribunal, consisting of Pawan Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Bijayanada Pruseth ( Accountant Member ), further asserted that the AO was not justified in denying the assessee the benefit of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act and directed the AO to compute income following the said provisions. The tribunal set aside the CIT(E) order and, as a result, allowed the assessee to appeal.

Eligibility of Interest Income for Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of Income Tax Act: ITAT Upholds CIT(A)’s Order [Read Order] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bongaon Co Operative Credit Society Limited CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1580

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s order granting relief on the eligibility of interest income for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma(Judicial Member)and Sanjay Awasthi(Accountant Member) reviewed the arguments and authorities presented by both sides. It noted that the CIT(A) granted relief on interest income by relying on section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, concluding that the amount of Rs. 29,11,418/- was eligible for deduction.

Rs.52.25 Lakh Addition u/s 69A for Unaccounted Fees: ITAT Orders Deletion Due to Evidence of Proper Accounting [Read Order] Future Education & Research Trust 10B - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1582

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered the deletion of Rs.52.25 Lakh addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 for unaccounted fees due to evidence of proper accounting.

Future Education & Research Trust,appellant-assessee,was registered under sections 12A and 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, with the main objective of providing education. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on September 24, 2013, declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices were issued and served.

Cash Gift from Father and Father-in-Law Not Taxable Under Income Tax Act: ITAT [Read Order] Krishna Nand Rai vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1583

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that cash gifts from a father and father-in-law are not taxable under the Income Tax Act,1961.

A single-member bench comprising Madhumita Roy(Judicial Member) examined the evidence in detail and found the assessee's claim credible. It observed that the supporting documents, such as proof of agricultural income and the marriage card, were consistent and had not been disputed by the authorities. The tribunal concluded that the addition was unsustainable, as the assesssee had successfully demonstrated the genuineness of the gifts and their source. As a result, the addition of Rs. 10,80,000 was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

32-Day Delay in Filing Appeal: ITAT Remands Matter to CIT(A) for Adjudication on Exemption Claim u/s 10(10C) [Read Order] Altab Husen Ismail Vahora Gulshah Colony vs The ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1584

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 32-day delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for adjudication on the exemption claim under section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two-member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member)reviewed the assessee’s submissions and found a reasonable cause for the 32-day delay in filing the appeal. It also noted that the assessee paid the disputed tax demand within three days of receiving the notice. Since the assessee, being a salaried person, had no prior experience with income tax litigation, the tribunal condoned the delay.

Security Deposit Taxable Upon Arbitration Award Due to Earlier Uncertainty: ITAT [Read Order] The Income Tax Officer vs Shri Govindappa Jayaram Doddiah (HUF) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1585

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the refundable security deposit is taxable only after the arbitration award due to earlier uncertainty regarding its treatment as income.

The two-member bench comprising Soundararajan K(Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed(Accountant Member) reviewed the case and the arbitration award dated 01/07/2024, where the assessee and developer agreed on a compensation of Rs. 1,18,30,789/- for the shortfall in built-up and car park areas. The dispute over the security deposit was resolved on 01/07/2024, so the amount was considered income from that date. The assessee agreed to report this amount as income for the AY 2024-25.

Procedure u/s 50C must follow while Sale consideration differs from Stamp Value: ITAT [Read Order] Shri Ranganath Ashok Meharwade vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1586

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that when the sale consideration in the sale deed differs from the stamp duty value, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) must follow the procedures outlined under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Soundararajan ( Judicial Member ) and Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant Member ) reviewed the arguments and materials provided. It found that when the sale consideration in the sale deed differs from the stamp value, the AO must follow the procedures under section 50C of the Act, which was done in this case.

Capital Gains Tax Applies to Owner Proven by Registered Sale Deeds: ITAT [Read Order] Shri Ranganath Ashok Meharwade vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1586

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gains tax applies to the owner as proven by registered sale deeds.

The two-member benches, Soundararajan ( Judicial Member ) and Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant Member ), examined the paper book submitted by the appellant, which included sale deeds and translations. The sale deed of 03/02/2015 indicated that the appellant, Shri Ranganath, was the seller and had bought 71 guntas of land in 2013. It also stated that the appellant owned 20 plots, 8 of which were sold due to financial difficulties.

ITAT Reduces Income Assessment to 0.3% of Credits, Considering similar Assessment in Subsequent Year [Read Order] New Edge Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd vs ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1587

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reduced the income assessment to 0.3% of the total credits received, considering a similar assessment in the subsequent year.

The two member bench comprising Vimal Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Pradip Kumar Kedia ( Accountant Member ) reviewed the submissions and found that the assessee had received INR 6,39,55,000/- in credits from Jain Group entities, with INR 6,39,50,000/- being passed to other entities in the accommodation entry scheme.

Disallowance of Commission Payments for Non-Deduction of TDS: ITAT Directs Fresh Assessment [Read Order] Kokila Cotton Export Ltd vs The A.C.I.T CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1588

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed a fresh assessment in a case involving the disallowance of commission payments for non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961, considering additional evidence submitted under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, which was previously unavailable due to financial difficulties and legal proceedings related to loan defaults.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) decided to remand the case to the AO, directing them to review the additional documents and pass a fresh assessment order by the law, giving the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard. The assessee was instructed to cooperate and provide all relevant documents for a proper decision.

Lack of Incriminating Material in 153C Proceedings: ITAT upholds CIT(A)’s Decision to quash Assessments [Read Order] DCIT VS Kohli Tent House CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1589

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to quash the assessment finding no incriminating material in the 153C proceedings.

The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar US ( Judicial Member ) and Shamim Yahya ( Accountant Member ) noted that the CIT(A), in the order dated 30.06.2023 for AY 2013-14, found no incriminating material related to the year in question. The AO’s addition was based on documents from AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, and no seized material or statements supported the addition for AY 2013-14.

Top Stories Rs.19 Lakh ‘Unexplained Money’ with Golgappa Vendor: ITAT Remands Income Tax matter Directing Opportunity for Personal Hearing [Read Order] Sunny vs The ITO CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1590

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh recently remanded an income tax matter while directing the provision of personal hearing opportunity to a golgappa vendor who landed in a soup, after being slapped with Notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 querying the source of Rs.19 lakh which was classified as ‘unexplained money’ by the revenue.

The two-member Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh comprising Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member and Paresh M. Joshi, Judicial Member, held that both the Assessment order under Section 144 and the first appellate order under Section 250(6) to not be meritorious in nature, observing that income computation during a year must be done on real time basis after considering submissions by both the opposing parties.

Procedural Delay in Filing Form 67 not a ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit: ITAT [Read Order] Narendra Vishnubhai Mistry vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1591

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that procedural delay in filing Form 67 cannot be a ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit (FTC).

The two member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) noted that the assessee had paid taxes in both India and abroad, and the foreign taxes were eligible for credit. Since this was not disputed, the delay in filing could not affect the assessee’s right to claim FTC. The bench directed the Revenue to allow the FTC and make the necessary corrections.

Disallowance of Excess Loan Interest: ITAT allows Full Deduction [Read Order] Bhaveshkumar Vinodbhai Patel Asian Parivar vs The ACIT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1592

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed full deduction of loan interest claimed under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the assessee, despite the Assessing Officer ( AO )’s disallowance of the excess interest.

The two-member bench comprising Dr BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) reviewed the case and found that the CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order due to the appellant’s failure to provide supporting details for the 50% claim. However, a similar issue in AY 2016-17 had been resolved in the appellant’s favour after examination, with interest being allowed.

Addition of Rs. 21.98 Lakhs as Unexplained Deposit u/s 69A: ITAT Remands Matter to AO [Read Order] Rakeshkumar Shamalbhai Sharma Sampa vs The ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1593

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) regarding the addition of Rs. 21.98 Lakhs as an unexplained deposit under section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks of receiving the order. The case was sent back to the AO for further review and action. The assessee was instructed to cooperate fully with the AO, or the AO could take appropriate action according to the law

Penalty for Underreporting Income u/s 270A: ITAT deletes Rs. 5.28 Lakh Penalty [Read Order] Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank vs The Dy.CIT CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1594

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted a penalty of Rs. 5.28 lakh levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act,1961 for underreporting income.

The two-member benches, T.R. Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member), reviewed the case and the materials on record. In response to the Section 142(1) notice, the assessee explained that Rs. 59,54,126/- declared as dividend income should be treated as STCG or business income. The assessee also requested the carried forward loss of Rs. 1,05,49,069/- from A.Y. 2017-18 to be set off against the current year’s income.

Depreciation Claim Disallowed Due to Error: ITAT Remands Matter to AO [Read Order] Safikahmed Mehamudali Ansari vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1595

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded matter to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) after observing that a depreciation claim, disallowed due to an error, had been allowed in both preceding and succeeding years.

The two-member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President) and  Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) observed that the assessee’s counsel submitted that the depreciation claim, which was allowed in both the preceding and succeeding years, had been disallowed in the relevant year due to an error.

Reassessment u/s 148 Based on Incriminating Materials: ITAT Quashes Reopening SHEEL TRADING COMPANY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1596

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )  quashed the reassessment under Section 148 based on incriminating materials, directing that the reassessment should have been carried out under Section 153C of Income Tax Act,1961 instead.

A single member bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) agreed with the assessee counsel’s submission that the reopening under Section 148 was based on materials found during the search of M/s. Dhanuka Group on 13.03.2019. It stated that the re-opening should have been done under Section 153C instead. The judgments cited by the assessee counsel were also considered, and since the reopening under Section 148 was found to be incorrect, it was quashed.

Disallowance of Rs. 17.17 Lakh in Expenditure: ITAT Restores Matter for De Novo Assessment [Read Order] Mayur Kanubhai Patel vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1597

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment in a case involving the disallowance of Rs. 17.17 lakh in expenditure.

The two member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), hearing the assessee counsel noted that the assessee would comply with the requirements before the AO if given the chance. In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to send the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

₹3.28 Crore STCG Addition: ITAT Remands Matter to AO for Reverification Due to Insufficient Documentation [Read Order] Silicon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Central Circle 4(4) CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1598

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )  remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of a ₹3.28 Crore Short-Term Capital Gain ( STCG ) addition due to insufficient documentation to prove that the transaction did not belong to the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi(Accountant Member) reviewed the arguments and documents. It found that the Sub-Registrar in Nagpur reported a property sale of Rs. 91,16,666/- on 02.04.2012 involving the assessee. The AO noticed that the assessee did not show any capital gains in their return, and the property was not listed in their balance sheet. The AO then calculated a STCG of Rs. 3,28,51,000/-.

Failure to Consider Service of Notices and Submissions Made by Assessee: ITAT Remands Matter to CIT(A) [Read Order] Shantilal R Patel vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1599

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fair review, highlighting the failure to consider the service of notices and the submissions made by the assessee,

A single-member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) heard both parties and reviewed the records. It noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the service of notices to the assessee or the submission made on 03.06.2023.

Rs. 1.6 Crore Unexplained Credit Addition: ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) [Read Order]Trinity Touch Pvt Ltd vs The A.C.I.T CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1600

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh consideration in the case of Rs. 1.6 Crore unexplained credit addition.

The two member bench comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad(Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra(Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. It directed the assessee to cooperate and provide necessary evidence and instructed the CIT(A) to decide the case afresh after giving the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.

Mere Cash Deposit Cannot Be Considered as Income: ITAT Deletes Income Tax Addition u/s 69 [Read Order] Dineshchandra Dudhwala VS Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1601

In a recent case, the Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that mere cash deposits could not be considered income and deleted the tax addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further observed that every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1) unless there is a finding of AO that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed the income.

A two-member bench of Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member viewed that no penalty is leviable as mere cash deposit cannot be considered income of the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Addition of Unsecured Loans and Non-Admittance of Evidence: ITAT Remands Matter to CIT(A) [Read Order] Amitkumar Chandulal Patel vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1602

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] for review of the addition of unsecured loans and non-admittance of evidence.

The two member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice-President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)reviewed the CIT(A)’s order, noting that the assessee was given a chance to submit details but failed to do so, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.It also found that the assessment was completed due to the assessee’s lack of response to the show-cause notice.

Ex-Parte Dismissal of Appeal Against Addition of  Unexplained Income: ITAT Remands Matter to CIT(A) [Read Order] Faridabanu Shaikh vs The ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1603

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)] after finding that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte against the addition of Rs.11 lakh as unexplained income.

The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member)heard both parties and reviewed the case. It was noted that the appeal was filed 82 days late, with no explanation from the assessee. However, the CIT(A)’s order was found to be ex-parte, and the date of service of the order, as mentioned in Form No. 36, was 13/12/2023, so the delay was accepted.

Challenge on FMV Assessed Based on Occupancy Certificate: ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Order in Absence of Contrary Evidence [Read Order] The Income Tax Officer vs Shri Govindappa Jayaram Doddiah CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1604

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s order, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal challenging the fair market value (FMV) assessed based on the occupancy certificate in the absence of contrary evidence.

The two-member bench comprising Soundararajan K(Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed(Accountant Member) considered the arguments and materials presented and noted that the AO acknowledged the expenses were related to the property but did not classify them as capital expenditure, arguing they were small works requested by tenants or buyers. The tribunal disagreed, stating that these improvements increased the property’s value and should be treated as capital expenditure.

Rejection of Registration of Trust Under Income Tax Act Due to Non-Compliance with Notices: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(E) [Read Order] Satvic Movement vs CIT(Exemption) CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1605

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] for fresh consideration in a case where the registration of a trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was rejected due to non-compliance with notices.

The two member bench comprising Avdhesh Kumar Mishra (Judicial Member) and Yogesh Kumar US(Accountant Member)heard the parties and reviewed the material and noted that the assessee was asked to provide certain details and documents to support the registration claim under Section 12A and 80G(5) of the Act during the proceedings before the CIT(E). However, the applications were rejected because the assessee did not submit the required information.

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/rejection-of-registration-of-trust-under-income-tax-act-due-to-non-compliance-with-notices-itat-restores-matter-to-cite/467652/

775 Days Delay in filing Income Tax Appeal Due to Covid 19 Restrictions: ITAT Directs CIT(A) to Apply Delay Exclusion [Read Order] Keshav Madhav Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1606

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] to apply the delay exclusion for a 775-day delay in filing the Income Tax appeal due to Covid-19 restrictions.

A single member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara ( Judicial Member ) heard both parties and noted that the CIT(A)/ NFAC had refused to condone the 775-day delay in filing the appeal, citing a lack of supportive material in the condonation petition.

Discrepancy in EDC Payment and Tax Liabilities: ITAT Remands Matter to AO [Read Order] Santur Builders Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1607

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the discrepancy in External Development Charges ( EDC ) payment and tax liabilities.

The tribunal considered the arguments and reviewed the evidence on record. It decided that the assessee should have a fair opportunity to present its case and that the Revenue must verify the EDC payments. The tribunal set aside the order and sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer (TDS) for verification and further action, directing the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.

Challenge on Reduction of Net Profit % by CIT(A): ITAT Remands Matter for Re verification of Books of Accounts & Other Documents [Read Order] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s M Z Enterprises CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1608

In a recent case about the challenge was on reduction of net profit upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)(CIT(A), the Ranchi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter for re verification of books of accounts & other documents.

A two member bench of Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the  file of the CIT(A) to re-examine this fact whether books of  account were actually produced and examined.

Rs. 42.26 Lakh Cash Deposit in Bank Unexplained: ITAT Sends Case Back to AO for Fresh Hearing Due to Non-Receipt of Notices [Read Order] NIRMALA DASS vs ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1609

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted a case involving an unexplained Rs. 42.26 lakh cash deposit in a bank back to the Assessing Officer (AO)  for fresh consideration, citing non-receipt of notices by the assessee.

A single member bench comprising Shamim Yahya(Accountant Member) heard both parties and reviewed the records. It was noted that the AO and CIT(A) mentioned the assessee had not responded to the notices. The assessee counsel stated the notices did not reach the assessee, causing non-compliance, and requested an opportunity to present the case before the AO.

ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Hearing on ₹10.95 Lakh Addition due to Consultant’s Non-Compliance [Read Order] Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel 10 vs Income-Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1610

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication of a ₹10.95 lakh addition, citing the consultant’s failure to respond to hearing notices as the reason for the ex-parte decision.

A single-member bench comprising of Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice-President ) was informed that the consultant failed to respond to the notices, causing the appeal to be dismissed. It was also mentioned that the assessee was a small employee with income from agriculture and requested a chance to be heard. The Departmental Representative ( DR ) agreed.

Interest Income from Deposits with Co-operative Banks Eligible for Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of Income Tax Act: ITAT [Read Order] The Bhagyoday Sharafi Sahakari Mandli Ltd vs The ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1611

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest income from deposits with Co-operative Banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) ruled that the interest income from deposits with the Co-operative Bank was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, and it directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the matter.

ITAT Relies on Jet Airways Judgment: Quashes ₹3.98 Crore Addition for Lack of Original Grounds [Read Order] Glasseye Traders Pvt. Ltd vs ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1612

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal of the assessee, relying on the landmark judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of  CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., and held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot make additions to the income of the assessee on new grounds if the original reason for reopening the assessment is not sustained. The assessee, Glasseye Traders Pvt. Ltd., filed its return for the assessment year 2013-14 on September 28, 2013, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,932.

AO fails to convert Limited Scrutiny to Complete, Any Addition made outside prescribed scope is invalid: ITAT [Read Order] Nawal Kishore Rajgarhia vs DCIT CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1613

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot examine any other issue in Limited scrutiny except for which it was notified and any addition made outside the scope stating that it was arbitrary and invalid.

The two-member bench comprising Rajesh Kumar, ( Accountant Member ) and Sonjoy Sarma, ( Judicial Member ) observed that the addition by the AO of Rs.6,47,446 and disallowance of long-term capital loss claim of Rs. 1,11,746 exceeds the scope of limited scrutiny.

Amount: ITAT Deletes Income Tax Penalty finding Reasonable Cause for S.269SS Non-Compliance [Read Order] Sri Gangadhara Shetty vs ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1614

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore recently held that no penalty may be levied on an Assessee if they have made genuine disclosure of their Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) while proceeding to delete penalty imposed on the Assessee, being apprised of reasonable cause for failing to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member Bench of Padmavathy S., Accountant Member And Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member observed that though the disputed Rs.6 Lakhs was not made out in the agreement dated 30.04.2015, the Assessee had not adopted any means to hide the same and had rightfully claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act which was affirmed in reassessment proceedings.

Assessee Proves Validity of Outstanding Trade Payables: ITAT deletes addition u/s 41( 1 ) [Read Order] Arkis Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward 1(1)(3) CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1615

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition under Section 41( 1 ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee successfully proved the validity of its outstanding trade payables.

In this case, the assessee, Arkis Enterprises, a private limited company engaged in trading commodities, chemicals, etc., filed its income tax returns for the assessment year 2012-13, declaring no taxable income after adjusting brought-forward losses of Rs. 43,454.

ITAT directs Deletion of Rs.54L Income Tax Penalty u/s 274 r/w 270A observing No Specific Mention of Clause Invoked u/s270A [Read Order] Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook vs ACIT CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1616

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while adjudicating an appeal regarding concealment of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), directed the deletion of Income Tax Penalty of Rs.54 Lakh under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, being confident that the Assessing Officer had failed to mention the specific clause of Section 270A which had been invoked to ascribe such impugned penalty.

Appellant-Assessee Melekandy Puthalath Farook filed the present appeal before the ITAT being aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer (AO).

ITAT invalidates Reassessment proceeding: No addition made by AO in respect of the issue for which reopening was made Income Tax Officer vs Magnetic Properties Exim Pvt.Ltd. CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1617

In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the assessing officer ( AO ) made no addition in respect of the issue for which the assessment proceedings were initiated. From the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the assessee, it can be understood that the reassessment proceedings were begun due to the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had availed accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases.

Long-Term Capital Gains cannot be deemed Bogus as AO fails to prove Price Rigging: ITAT [Read Order] Manjula H. Vira vs ACIT-27(2) CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1618

In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that in the present case, long-term capital gains cannot be deemed bogus as the assessing officer (  AO ) fails to prove price rigging.

The ITAT, comprising Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang( President ) and B.R. Baskaran ( Accountant Member )  held that long-term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be considered to be bogus and directed the AO to delete the additions.

Failure to File Appeal due to lack of knowledge about e-filing system: ITAT Condones 1030 Days Delay [Read Order] Yadram vs Income-tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1619

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned the 1030 days delay as the failure to file appeal was due to lack of knowledge about e-filing system. The bench remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh adjudication as per law. 

Yadram, the appellant assessee challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ( CIT(A)/NFAC ) ’s order that refused to condone 1030 days’ delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 30.01.2019 against the assessment order dated 15.03.2016.

Timely Deposit of Employee PF and ESI Contributions Required for Deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act: ITAT [Read Order] Schaeffler India Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1620

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that timely deposit of employee Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees’ State Insurance ( ESI ) contributions is required for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Suddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) also referred to various other ITAT decisions, including Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda and Cemetile Industries, where disallowance of late deposits of employee contributions to EPF and ESI was upheld under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal observed that these decisions were consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings.

No Material Relating to Assessee Found during Search: ITAT upholds Reassessment u/s 147 [Read Order] Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax vs M/s. Blueray Trading Pvt. Ltd CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1621

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the reassessment under section 147 of Income Tax Act,1961, stating that no material directly relating to the assessee was found during the search.

The two member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) agreed with the revenue counsel stating that since no material related to the assessee was found during the search, the assessment under section 147 was valid. Therefore, the claim for assessment under section 153C was rejected.

Sale Value as of Agreement Date to be Considered u/s 50C of the Act: ITAT [Read Order] Devindraben Rajeshbhai Sharma vs The ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1622

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)held that the sale value of a property should be considered as of the agreement date under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President) and  Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) reviewed the submissions from both parties and examined the material on record, highlighting the key facts of the case. The assessee had entered into a Banakhat (agreement to sell) on 24/08/2010, which was inventorized on 25/08/2010, with an advance payment of ₹1 lakh. A sale deed for the residential property was later executed on 25/11/2011 for ₹42,00,000. The Revenue applied Section 50C of the Act,  using the date of registration of the sale deed, i.e., 25/11/2011, as the basis.

Tax Leviable on Gain out of Crypto Currency Sale as Capital Gains: ITAT [Read Order] Raunaq Prakash Jain vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1627

In an important ruling, the Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the gain on sale of cryptocurrency ( bitcoin ) prior to  the Assessment year ( AY ) 2022-23 is chargeable to tax as capital gains.

The two member bench of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi ( Judicial Member ) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai ( Accountant Member )held that the AO is incorrect in holding that to qualify as capital asset one should actually own something as property in as much as even if a person has a right or claim on a property it is also a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act.

Losses from One Unit Need not Offset Profits of Another for Section 80-IB Deduction: ITAT [Read Order] Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs DCIT CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1624

In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the losses from one industrial unit need not offset the profits of another for section 80-IB deduction under the Income Tax Act,1961.

This order deals with the assessee’s appeal against the four separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT( A ) ]relating to the assessment years ( AY ) 2002-03 to 2005-06.

Interest u/s 234C to be Calculated on Tax Due as Per Returned Income: ITAT [Read Order] Shilpa Steel And Power Ltd. 2 vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–2 CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1626

In a recent ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), held that interest under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be calculated based on the tax due as per the returned income of the assessee.

In this case, the assessee, Shilpa Steel and Power Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing of steel products. It had filed its Income Tax Returns ( ITR ), declaring income of Rs. 38.22 crore for the assessment year 2018-19.

ITAT Sets Aside Assessment for AY 2009-10 Due to Jurisdictional Error u/s 153C of Income Tax Act [Read Order] Kamal Sharma vs DCIT CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1628

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the assessment for Assessment Year(AY) 2009-10 due to a jurisdictional error under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek(Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions and material presented. It noted that a search in the case of Sunstar Group was conducted on 19.12.2013, and a notice under section 153C was issued on 20.01.2016. As the satisfaction note was recorded before the notice was issued, the relevant assessment year was determined to be AY 2016-17.

Notices for Appeal Sent to Incorrect Email-ID: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(A) [Read Order] Conscient Infrastructure P. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1629

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)] after finding that the notices for the appeal had been sent to an incorrect email ID.

The two member bench comprising Vikas Awasthy ( Judicial Member ) and S Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) heard both sides and reviewed the orders of the authorities. It was found that the CIT(A) had sent notices to the assessee on five occasions. The assessee responded to one notice and asked for an adjournment, but did not respond to the other four. The assessee’s counsel submitted a copy of a notice dated 16.02.2024, showing that the notices were sent to the wrong email ID, which is why they were not received.

AO Disallows ₹4.94 Lakhs Write-Off for Non-Recoverable Dues from Trust Terminated Members: ITAT Allows Citing Non-Refundable Deposit [Read Order] The Maharaja Pratapsinh Coronation Gymkhana vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1632

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tax ( ITAT ) allowed the write-off of Rs.4.94 lakhs for non-recoverable dues from terminated trust members citing it as a non-refundable deposit in nature.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed the assessee’s argument that the security deposits were non-refundable and had been taken into the corpus of the Gymkhana.

ITAT Remands ₹1.89L Cattle Feed Deposits Matter Due to Agriculturist’s Lack of Tax Proceedings Awareness [Read Order] Sanjaykumar Virabhai Patel vs The ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1633

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter involving unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1.89 lakh, acknowledging that the amount was from cattle feed sales and that the agriculturist lacked knowledge of tax proceedings.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) admitted the additional evidence and decided to remand the matter back to the assessing officer for verification.

Tax Exemptions Claimed in Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme cannot be Re-agitated u/s 263 w/out New Facts: ITAT [Read Order] Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1635

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad while adjudicating an Income Tax Appeal observed that tax exemptions claimed by means of the Vivad Se Vishwas ( VSV ) Scheme may not be re-agitated through Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless any new facts are brought on record.

Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member, constituting the ITAT Bench noted that the PCIT order failed to address the detailed submissions made by the assessee with reference to the finality of the VSV Act, and inquiries conducted during the original assessment which the PCIT had summarily overlooked.

S. 263 Order passed by PCIT by Violating Principles of Natural Justice: ITAT quashes  Disallowance of Interest on Grant of Rs. 4.18 crore [Read Order] Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1636

In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed all the grounds filed by the assessee and held that the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) by violating the principles of natural justice and quashes disallowance of interest on a grant of Rs. 4.18 crore.

The bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Memebr ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (  Judicial Member ) set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

ITAT Criticizes PCIT for Disallowing Rs. 4.18 Crores Interest on Unutilized Govt Grants Without Considering Corp. Submission [Read Order] Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1636

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) criticized the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) for disallowing Rs. 4.18 crores as interest on unutilized government grants claimed by Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. ( GPCL ).

The two-member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that PCIT failed to substantiate why the AO’s order was erroneous or how the interest expenditure claims prejudiced revenue interests.

Ex Parte Assessment Order u/s 144 Passed by upholding Addition of unexplained Investment: ITAT Restores matter Considering Old Age of Assessee [Read Order] VINOD KUMAR GARG vs ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1637

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the ex parte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income tax passed considering old age of assessee. Through the order, the bench upheld the addition of unexplained investment.

A two member bench of Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, and Shri  Vimal Kumar,  Judicial Member viewed that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO. The AO shall pass the order,  after giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. 

Late Submission of Form 10B deemed Procedural Lapse: ITAT grants benefit u/s 11 of Income Tax [Read Order] Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Meshree Vanik Gnati vs Asst. Director of Income-tax, CPC CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1638

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that the late submission of Form 10B was deemed a procedural lapse and should not be a reason to deny substantive claims. The tribunal granted exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1962.

The tribunal ruled that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Form 10B had been filed even though it was late and was part of the records during the assessment process. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT Condones 244 days Delay, Restores Ex-Parte Order to AO for Fresh Adjudication due to Genuine Hardships Faced by Assessee [Read Order] Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1639

In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a delay of 244 days and restored the ex-parte order to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the genuine hardships faced by the assessee.

The bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT( A ) and restored the matter to AO for fresh adjudication.

ITAT Upholds disallowance u/s 56(2)(viib) due to Unexplained Share Premium Fluctuation within same Financial Year [Read Order] Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs The D.C.I.T. CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1640

In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to Unexplained Share Premium Fluctuation within the same Financial Year.

The bench comprising T. R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) upheld the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

CPC cannot Disallow S.11 Benefits already Accepted: ITAT Rules Action Beyond Scope of Rectification [Read Order]The ITO (Exemption) Ward-2 vs Shree Umiya Education Trust 29 CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1641

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) cannot disallow Section 11 exemption benefits that were previously granted in the intimation under Section 143(1) during rectification proceedings and ruled it acted beyond its scope.

The two-member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the CPC acted beyond its authority (“functus officio”) by revising its earlier order of granting exemption under section 11 in rectification proceedings.

ITAT Relieves Cooperative Society of ₹1 Crore Penalty u/s 271E for Loan Repayment in Cash [Read Order] Income Tax Officer vs Paharhati O Uttar Memari Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1643

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),CIT(A), against the appeal filed by Revenue against relieving the penalty under section 271 E for the alleged violation of loan repayment by respondent.

The two member Bench comprised of Sanjay Garg(Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra(Accountant Member) firmly upheld the findings of the CIT (A), dismissing the imposition of the One Crore penalty. The case reinforces the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly when distinguishing between loan repayments and loan disbursements. This ruling serves as a reminder that penalties under tax law should not be imposed without a thorough understanding of the facts and the applicable legal provisions.

Non-Compliance due to Taxpayer’s Family Member’s ill-health: ITAT grants Hearing Opportunity [Read Order] Pankajkumar N. Patel vs The ITO CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1645

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted a hearing opportunity, acknowledging the assessee’s non-compliance with the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) notices due to the ill-health of a family member.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) heard arguments from both sides and considered the material presented. The tribunal observed that the reason for the non-compliance to the notices issued by the AO was due to the ill health of the family member.

CIT(A) disallows ₹1.41 Crore u/s 54F for Additional Residential Property: ITAT Remands Matter Clarifying Commercial Properties Ownership [Read Order] Malav Jashwantlal Shah vs Income Tax Officer CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1646

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter for verification concerning CIT(A)’s disallowance of Rs. 1.41 crore exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for alleged additional residential property. The tribunal observed it was commercial property based on additional evidence.

The two-member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) and T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) observed from the additional documents submitted by the assessee that those were commercial property not residential.

ITAT upholds AO’s Disallowance of STCL Due to Adjustment already made in Previous AY but Deletes Penalty Citing Lack of Justification [Read Order] Sunil Kumar Somani vs ACIT CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1648

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the disallowance of short-term capital loss which was already adjusted in the previous assessment year (AY) but deleted the penalty levied by the assessing officer (AO) stating that lack of justification.

The two-judge Bench composed of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant member) observed that losses were not found from any independent source. The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) detected claims of losses from the material available to him. The Tribunal highlighted that if the losses were detected from an independent source it can be said that there was real intention to hide the total income.

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