The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that no disallowance should be made for employee contributions to the Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employee State Insurance ( ESI ) if the contributions were remitted before the return filing deadline.
Consequently, the tribunal quashed the PCIT’s order, resulting in a favorable outcome for the assessee regarding the deduction for employee contributions to PF and ESI.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the doctrine of merger did not apply to the income retained by the CPC in its intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma ( Judicial Member ) and Rakesh Mishra ( Accountant Member ) dismissed the appeal and stated that the assessee might pursue other avenues for relief regarding the addition made in the CPC intimation under section 143(1)(a). In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to delete additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, citing sufficient cash balance and lack of evidence for accommodation entries.
The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sharma(Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra(Accountant Member)dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)’s order and confirming the deletion of the addition based on sufficient evidence provided by the assessee.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act,1961 despite late filing of the income tax return and the use of an incorrect form for submission.
The two member bench comprising Sanjay Garg ( Judicial Member ) and Rakesh Mishra ( Accountant Member ) determined that the lower authorities’ decision to deny the exemption was unjustified. It ruled in favor of the appellant, instructing the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to grant the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) as claimed by the assessee, thereby allowing the appeal and reaffirming the assessee’s entitlement to the exemption. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the non-taxability of Google Ireland’s Ad revenue in India and held that the payments are not classified as royalty or fees for technical service ( FTS ).
The bench, following the decision of the tribunal, held that the payments made by GIL and other Indian customers to the assessee cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently set aside an addition of Rs. 2.25 crore made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) against one assessee/appellant, Tirupati Jewels, New Delhi, for unexplained cash deposits, noting that the addition was based on the AO’s mere suspicion.
Thus the ITAT ruled that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits through sales documentation and festival-specific sales trends. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the Rs. 2.25 crore addition.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Chennai remanded a dismissed appeal following the dismissal of the said appeal being due to both “non-prosecution simpliciter” and non-condonation of delay.
Concluding that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal solely on procedural grounds, the ITAT set aside the dismissal. The matter has now been remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, instructing the authority to consider the delay issue first and, if condoned, to address the merits of the case.
Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Delhi has allowed an appeal by an assessee condoning a delay of 236 days in filing the appeal in light of Supreme Court’s precedents, stressing that accepting delays in cases where a valid reason is provided should be the standard practice, while rejecting such explanations should only be an exception.
The Tribunal, aligning with this judicial philosophy, acknowledged the cooperative society’s explanations and opted to condone the 236-day delay. Consequently, it restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment on its merits, granting the appellant the opportunity to present its case comprehensively.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deletes Rs. 6 lakh penalty on the assessee over an alleged violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT bench further observed that this is a case where a claim has been made in an open and bona fide manner, and hence, in terms of provisions of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, which specifically exclude the rigors of provisions of Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, and thus the penalty is not maintainable.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Delhi directed a reassessment of a disputed ₹10.3 lakh deposit made during India’s 2016 demonetization period, following an appeal that was previously dismissed without a full review.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the ITAT found that the appeal had been dismissed without a thorough examination of the evidence. The tribunal concluded that a fresh review would be appropriate to ensure that all relevant details were fully assessed. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the earlier dismissal and instructed the AO to re-evaluate the case.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently in a ruling set aside an ex-parte assessment order as the notices from the Assessing Officer ( AO ) was never served to the assessee/appellant, the taxpayer, Raj Rani, a resident of Village Lath, Gohana, Haryana, which resulted in non-compliance.
Recognizing the importance of due process, the ITAT ruled to set aside the previous orders and instructed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment, providing a fair opportunity to the assessee to present the case. The ITAT also directed the assessee to provide a functional email address to ensure smooth communication for future proceedings.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for unsecured loans, affirming the validity of the sources provided by the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial Member) and S.Balakrishnan(Accountant Member)concluded that the assessee adequately explained the source of the loans. Therefore, it allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to delete the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 confirming that the source of investment was adequately explained.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial Member) and S.Balakrishnan(Accountant Member) reviewed the evidence, including bank records and the sale certificate, and found that the funds were indeed transferred from M/s. A.R. Constructions for the cold storage purchases. Since the transactions were recorded both in the firm’s books and in the assessee’s capital accounts in the two firms, the tribunal concluded that the source of the investment was fully explained. Accordingly, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition under section 68, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )ruled that a cooperative society is eligible for an income tax deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income derived from bank deposits.
A single bench of Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial Member) found that the facts in the current appeal were distinguishable from prior rulings and supported the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P for the interest earned on deposits.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) addition of ₹9.65 lakh under section 56(2)(x), of Income Tax Act,1961 ruling that the gift received from the father’s Hindu Undivided Family ( HUF ) did not qualify as a relative under the Act and was therefore taxable.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) after considering the arguments,acknowledged that the assessee received Rs. 9,65,000 from Shri Devagiri Lakshmi Narsimha Reddy HUF, with the assessee’s father acting as Kartha. The AO correctly noted that the gift was received without any consideration and did not meet the definition of a relative under the Act. Thus, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Revenue Authorities’ decision and upheld the addition made by the AO. The appeal was not allowed.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the addition of Rs. 11.4 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for unexplained cash, citing the assessee’s insufficient explanation regarding the source of these funds.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) noted that the responsibility to clarify the source of capital investments lay with the assessee. Due to the insufficient explanation provided regarding the source of the investment, the tribunal found the DR’s arguments persuasive and decided to uphold the addition made by the AO. As a result, the assessee’s request for deletion of the addition was denied.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh hearing following an ex parte dismissal due to the assessee’s non-compliance with notices.
The single member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) directed the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings, and the CIT(A) may seek a remand report if needed. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned the Assessing Officer ( AO )’s addition of Rs. 1.4 lakh under section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 validating the assessee’s accounting of cash and an insurance payment made on behalf of his partnership firm.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) after reviewing the case, found that the AO did not provide sufficient justification for treating the Rs. 1,40,000 as unexplained.It determined that the assessee had properly accounted for the cash introduced and the insurance payment. Therefore, it directed the AO to remove the addition of Rs. 1,40,000, allowing the assessee’s appeal on this issue.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s deletion of a penalty imposed on the Mother Theressa Educational Society,the assessee, for misreported depreciation, emphasizing that the assessee had complied with the requirement of spending 85% of its revenue for charitable purposes.
The Division Bench of Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial member) and S.Balakrishnan(Accountant Member) upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the penalty, concluding that there were no infirmities in the lower authority’s ruling. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)’s decision in favor of the assessee.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)[CIT(E)]’s order, upholding the nil income assessment for Mother Theresa Educational Society, on grounds that the assessee had properly applied its funds in compliance with the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Division Bench of Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial member) and S.Balakrishnan(Accountant Member)found merit in the assessee’s arguments. It confirmed that the AO had properly disallowed the depreciation and assessed the income as nil. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was quashed, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed, reaffirming the correctness of the original assessment.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for reassessment of cash deposits made by the assessee, after recognizing the necessity to consider additional evidence that had been previously rejected.
Therefore, it remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A and decide the case on its merits, ensuring the assessee had a fair chance to be heard. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that an error in linking a PAN to a partnership firm resulted in an addition under Section 69A to the assessee and held that the order by the First Appellate Authority ( FAA ) to be unclear and has directed a fresh examination of the case.
The ITAT bench, comprising of Soundararrajan K ( Judicial Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ), remitted the case to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to submit necessary documentation. The bench held that the assessee should also be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and was expected to cooperate for a timely resolution.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the addition of 44.5 crores was made based on incorrect reporting by the auditor and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to condone a delay of 484 days.
The bench clarified that this decision is specific to this case and cannot serve as a precedent. The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Cuttak bench of the Incomed Tax Appeallate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled in favour of the assessee and held that there was no delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ). It was held that the appeal was filed before the CIT ( A ) within the valid timeframe under the COVID-19 limitation extension.
The bench noted that the assessee had not submitted all relevant evidence before the AO during the initial assessment. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the case back to the AO and directed the AO to give the assessee an adequate opportunity to present the assessee’s evidence.The bench partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a deduction of Rs. 1.72 crore claimed by the assessee for the reversal of a provision for obsolete inventory due to double taxation.
The ITAT bench, comprising of George George K. ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant Member ), held that the claim of the assessee against the reversal of provision to the tune of Rs. 1,72,98,009, as the same stands offered to tax in the year in which the provision was created.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessee, classifying funding received from the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research ( DSIR ) as a soft loan rather than a grant.
The Division Bench of Duvvuru RL Reddy(Judicial Member) and S.Balakrishnan(Accountant Member) based on these findings,determined that the amount was a soft loan, not a grant-in-aid, and allowed the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), directing the AO to reverse the disallowance. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) additions for deemed rental income, emphasizing the validity of long-term lease agreements held by the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) concluded that the AO’s addition of deemed rent lacked sufficient justification, considering the long-standing rental agreements and the absence of related-party transactions. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the appeal filed by the assessee, allowing the claim for the contested rental income.
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of New Delhi ruled that a mere transfer of shares among shareholders does not justify revaluing a company’s property for taxation purposes.
After considering all submissions, the ITAT bench of Mr Pradip Kumar Kedia and Mr Anuhav Sharma upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, observing that the AO had acted without proper jurisdiction in reopening the assessment. The Tribunal reaffirmed that a transfer of shares does not constitute a property transfer by the company, thus rendering the income addition baseless. In result, the appeal was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous after the assessee filed a fresh application for Section 80G approval, following the issuance of Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) Circular No. 07/2024.
Despite the assessee’s contentions, the CIT(E) maintained the rejection of the application due to the late filing. Following the issuance of a CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated April 25, 2024,, the assessee submitted a fresh application to the CIT(E). This new development rendered the original appeal moot, leading to its dismissal. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] for a fresh hearing, citing a violation of natural justice in the issuance of an ex-parte order.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar(Accountant Member), determined that the case should be remanded back to the CIT(E) for a thorough de-novo examination, ensuring that the assessee would receive a fair opportunity to present their case. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent case before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur the tribunal quashed ex-parte additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act ( the Act from hereon) and remarked on the difference between Total Business Turnover and Business Income.
The tribunal directed the AO to calculate estimated profit @1% at around One hundred fifty-three thousand rupees, on transactions of One hundred fifty-three million rupees being the net income of the assessee which will meet the ends of justice. The addition made section 69A of the Act was quashed, though the assessee shall have tax liability and interest was exempted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the aforesaid terms.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of Income Tax Act,1961 for reconsideration following the issuance of a new circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ).
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Dr.BRR Kumar(Accountant Member) directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present its case and to ensure that the application would not be rejected solely based on the reasons cited in the earlier order. In conclusion,the assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the Madras Cricket Club,the assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, citing a tax effect below ₹60 lakhs in accordance with Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) Circular No. 09 of 2024.
The tribunal also indicated that if the appeal fell under any exceptions specified in the circular, the Revenue could apply for recalling the order if deemed necessary. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partially upheld the addition of RS.79.35 lakh as unexplained investment related to the property purchase made by the assessee and granted him additional time to submit further documentation.
In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, affirming Rs. 69,35,000 as substantiated while requiring additional proof for the outstanding Rs. 10 lakhs.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for further adjudication regarding the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) corrigendum in the tax assessment order for the assessment year ( AY ) 2017-18.
The two member bench comprising Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ), the remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication, allowing the assessee the opportunity to present her case ,since the CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the Revenue’s appeal for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) restored the matter to the file of the AO, allowing the Assessee to submit the documents and requiring the AO to pass a fresh assessment order, providing a fair opportunity to the assessee. In conclusion,the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partially allowed the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- of the agricultural income, while upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,470/- due to the lack of supporting evidence, such as sale invoices and bills of expenditure, to substantiate the agricultural activities and income.
However, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, accepting Rs. 5,00,000/- of the claimed agricultural income and upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,470/-. In conclusion, the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed, with a portion of the agricultural income being accepted and the remaining income being disallowed due to insufficient evidence.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the revenue’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and granted liberty to the revenue to approach the appropriate bench.
The two member bench comprising Saktijit Dey(Vice President) and M.Balaganesh(Accountant Member)dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and allowed the revenue to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench. In conclusion, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for re-examination, citing an insufficient hearing notice period.
The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objections to remanding the case. Consequently, the appellate tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-evaluate the application and issue a fresh order within 50 days, ensuring that the assessee received a fair opportunity for a hearing. In conclusion, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act,1961 and ordered fresh proceedings after the reconsideration of the quantum addition.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial Member ) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) set aside both the penalty order and the CIT(A)’s decision, allowing the AO to initiate new penalty proceedings, if necessary, following the conclusion of the reassessment process. As a result, the tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3.80 crore made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) regarding on-money in a land purchase transaction, citing the lack of evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transaction.
The two member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) and S.Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) noted that no incriminating material was found at the assessee’s premises, and the AO did not conduct independent inquiries. It distinguished the case from B. Kishore Kumar v. DCIT, as the assessee in this case did not admit to paying on-money. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication, citing a violation of natural justice and procedural lapses.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fair opportunity to present her case. A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, due to her lack of diligence in the appeal. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case of the assessee to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for verification of a Rs. 15.71 lakh liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, citing lack of sufficient evidence regarding the discharge of the liability and non-compliance with Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) provisions.
Accordingly, it remanded the matter to the AO, instructing that if the liabilities were discharged as claimed, the assessee should be granted appropriate relief. In summary, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case of the assessee to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for reassessment of the capital gain, highlighting the failure to consider additional evidence.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to evaluate the evidence and re-assess the capital gain, considering the indexed cost of acquisition.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication due to the denial of a personal hearing to the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial Member ) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the assessee is provided an opportunity to present his case. In conclusion,the appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered the rehearing of the assessee’s appeal after the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S(Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard and to pass an order in accordance with the law. The assessee was also reminded to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A). In conclusion,the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest-free advances provided to the assessee’s sister concern.
The ITAT bench, comprising George George K ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the AO was incorrect in making the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the AO to delete the disallowance
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( DCIT ) for the assessment year ( AY ) 2021-22, where the assessing officer ( AO ) had applied Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of the appropriate Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT, comprising of Sktijit Dey ( Vice President ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) quashed the assessment order and held that the proceedings had no legal standing due to procedural lapses. The bench allowed the appeal and held that any examination of other grounds raised was unnecessary since the assessment itself was void.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
