This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week 9th November 2024 to 15th November 2024.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University’s ( BAOU ),the assessee’s exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for Assessment Year(AY) 2014-15, which was previously denied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)].
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) found that the AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue, as it was based on a correct application of law and facts. The CIT(E)’s exclusion of interest income and retroactive application of Rule 2BBB were incorrect. In conclusion,the tribunal quashed the CIT(E)’s order under Section 263, allowing the assessee’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned the Assessing Officer’s (AO) rejection of books and deleted the addition of Rs. 4,12,67,000 as unexplained income, citing the lack of evidence of specific discrepancies in the books of accounts.
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member)set aside the AO’s rejection of the books and reversed the addition of Rs. 4,12,67,000 under Section 68 of the Act. All grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, underscoring that assumptions alone were insufficient grounds for rejecting books and making income additions. In conclusion the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reduced the commission income addition to 0.50% on bank transactions in an income tax appeal filed by the assessee, who was engaged in cheque discounting and money transfer, citing it as a reasonable rate based on the nature of the business and precedents in similar cases.
Additionally, the assessee contested an addition of Rs. 1.20 lakh under section 69A, which was alleged to have been given to M/s Hari Corporation. However, as no specific grounds were raised on this issue before the CIT(A), the tribunal rejected the assessee’s argument. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the commission rate being reduced to 0.50%, but the addition of Rs. 1.20 lakh was upheld.
The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate cash deposits of Rs. 12,03,000 that were added as unexplained income during the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2017-18.
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and restored the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. It directed the AO to grant the assessee an opportunity for hearing before passing any order and advised the appellant to be more vigilant in future proceedings. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to assessee, by restricting the disallowance of Provident Fund ( PF ) and Employees State Insurance ( ESI ) contributions, based on the timely payment of the employer’s contributions under section 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Prakash Chand Yadav ( Judicial Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) decided to restore the matter to the A.O. for verification and directed that relief be granted to the assessee for the employer’s contributions. The disallowance was to be limited to the employee’s contributions. The Tribunal also dismissed the additional grounds raised by the assessee, as no arguments were presented in support of them. In conclusion,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance of Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance ( ESI ) contributions on the grounds that they were deposited after the statutory deadlines, making them ineligible for deduction under income tax law.
Therefore, the tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the delayed PF/ESI contributions. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed.
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore the assessee’s appeal was allowed recognizing Medical Certificate as sufficient proof for condonation of taxpayer’s delay in filing of audit report.
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
The board directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of assessee as per direction of CBDT. Thus the appeal of assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) paid by the assessee should not be included while computing the gross receipts under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the case of Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, the key issue was whether the service tax collected by the assessee should be included in the total amount paid or payable for computing presumptive tax under Section 44BB(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling clarified that service tax reimbursement is not to be included in the aggregate amount when calculating profits and gains under Section 44BB. Thus, considering and following the precedents by the High Court decided to concur with the observation of the assessee and thus grounds of the appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Hyderabad recently quashed an Order issued by the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) – National Faceless Assessment Centre ( CIT (A) ), Delhi citing the lack of proof warranting the taxpayer to pay advance tax under the provisions of Section 209 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In light of such observation, the ITAT Bench held that the CIT(A) had erred in invoking the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while dismissing the case of the Appellant in limine. Subsequently, ITAT set aside the impugned Order of the CIT(A), while directing the NFAC to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act,1961 can be allowed based on the amount utilized out of the sale consideration towards construction of the property even if the construction is not complete
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
The counsel on behalf of the assessee by relying on a judgment by the Karnataka High Court, contended that the CIT( A ) had rightfully allowed the claim of assessee under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.The ITAT bench upheld the decision of CIT ( A ) and allowed the exemption claimed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) as the investors proven genuine.
The bench observed that the assessee substantiated the genuineness of the investors, and no addition is sustained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Statute. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal against the Section 263 order is allowed. The ITAT bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bench remanded the Matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for Production of Payment Challans in regard to the Delayed PF and ESIC Payments.
The court directed the assessee to produce the necessary challans for proof of payments in light of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Also the assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing and assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed the addition of Rs.34 Lakh made by an Assessing Officer to the income of an Assessee on account of unexplained cash deposit. The ITAT while adjudicating the matter also refuted the actions of the lower adjudicatory bodies in not permitting the Assessee to adduce additional evidence that had been contended to be integral to the case at hand.
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
In light of the observations made, ITAT set aside the matter and redirected the file back to the concerned AO with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh. Further instructions were issued to the AO to entertain the additional evidence and any other evidence that may be produced by the Assessee at the time of hearing.
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that Income Tax addition is not applicable on the interest income from government project funds deposited as the interest was entirely remitted back to the central/ state government and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ).
The bench held that after verifying if it is found that the entire interest income has been remitted back to the Central Govt./ State Govt., then there should be no addition on both the interest income earned on its deposits ( FD and SB A/c ).
In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), New Delhi it was ruled that an assessment against a non-existent entity cannot be rectified by invoking Section 292 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, comprising Accountant member Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar observed that the legal issue was in favor of assessee and quashed the assessment order. Thus the appeal filed by revenue was dismissed.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs.53.23 Lakhs on cash deposits during the demonetization period and directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to re-compute the income of the assessee.
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
The tribunal also highlighted that there was no legal requirement for the timing of deposits, thus finding the AO’s reasoning unsupported. As a result, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.53.23 lakhs and directed the AO to recompute the income, allowing the appeal. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the entire bank credit of the assessee should be treated as business receipts for income estimation under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act,1961.
As a result, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the assessment by including the entire amount as business receipts and adjusting the income accordingly.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reassessment, allowing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the Rs. 51.20 Lacs cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the case to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to present the necessary evidence to support his claim.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 50-day delay in filing an appeal and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice.
Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here
The two member bench comprising Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) therefore decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present the case.The CIT(A) was directed to re-evaluate the appeal on its merits and condoned the initial 50 day delay,urging the assessee to cooperate fully with the remand proceedings and any failure from the part of the assessee no liberality will be shown. As a result the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) was recently faced with a matter wherein an Assessee’s Cash Deposits in their Savings Bank Account were treated as ‘Unexplained Money’. The ITAT proceeded to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh assessment.
Concludingly, the ITAT, being wary of the AO’s adoption of a wrong mechanism while adjudicating the Assessee’s case, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the amount withdrawn from the Bank Account by way of cash should be deemed to be available for subsequent deposit; the balance amount, if any, after being reduced by the income already returned, may be brought to tax.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently set aside the addition of Rs.46,58,891/- made to an Income Tax Assessment passed under Sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the lack of opportunity provided to the Assessee to adduce evidence to contest his case.
In light of such observation, the ITAT remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer while issuing directions to conduct the assessment afresh, and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
