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 from September 24 to September 30, 2022
M/s. Patel Brass Works P. Ltd vs ACIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1296
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot bench disallowed the claim under Section 801 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that there was a failure to file valid Income Tax Returns or revised Income Tax returns. The Bench consisting of Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member, and Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member observed that “It is an undisputed fact, that the assessee did not make a claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in its return of income. The said claim was made by way of filing revised computation during the course of assessment proceedings In view of the plain language of the Statute, and respectfully following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rachna Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., we are of the view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in confirming the order of the assessing officer. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.”
The ACIT vs M/s. Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 955
Expenditure on technical know-how fees is revenue expenditure, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench consisting of Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member and N K Choudhary, Judicial Member deleted disallowance made by Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal observed that “We find that AO had disallowed the expenditure considering it to be a capital expenditure and following the decision of his predecessor for earlier assessment years. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) has been pointed-out by Revenue nor has Revenue placed on record any material to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years has been set aside, overruled or modified by higher judicial forum.’’
NCR Business Park Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT– 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 823
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that, no disallowance of expenses on basis of lack of business activity or non-reporting income under Profit and gains of business or profession (PGBP). The Coram of Mr G.S. Pannu, President, and Mr Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member has held that “there is no matter on record to suggest that the expenses were examined based on actual expenditure corroborated by evidence. Therefore, the issue regarding the disallowance of expenses is restored to the files of the AO with a direction to evaluate the genuineness of the expenses on an actual expenditure basis and then pass fresh assessment order”.
M/s. Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax– 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 824
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that remission of liability by order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) is a capital liability, and cannot be brought to tax as business income. The Coram of Mr. G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member, and Mr. Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member has observed that the amount credited to profit & loss account towards remission of liability by the order of BIFR is a capital liability and thus, remission of such liability cannot be brought to tax u/s.41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/s. India Safari and Tours Ltd – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 820
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench has held that interior design, electrification charges, furniture charges, wallpaper, toughened glass, etc. are purely temporary structures; ITAT allows 100% depreciation. The Coram of Mr. Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member by relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Girdhari Dass & Sons vs. CIT has held that “we set aside the orders of authorities below on this issue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee”.
Pankaj Sharma vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1308
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the assessee as there was a failure to pay Court Fees despite ample opportunities. A Coram consisting of Kul Bharat, Judicial Member observed that “I find that the present appeal is defective for want of payment of proper Court fee and the assessee has not removed the defect despite having given ample opportunities. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine on account of an appeal being defective.”
M/s.P.S.K. Engineering –Construction & Co vs Asst. Director of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1306
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench has held that the order by the AIDT will not sustain as it was rejecting the claim under section 80I A of the Income Tax Act,1961 without giving a reasonable opportunity. A Coram comprising Shri Mahavir Singh, vice president and Dr Dipak P Ripote, accountant member observed that the reasons mentioned in the impugned order are cryptic and set aside the impugned order u/s.143(1) of the Act, to the AO with a direction to pass the order afresh after allowing the assessee as per law. The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Gaurav Kumar Goenka, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1310
The Chennai Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that completion of assessment in the hand of the company is enough to prove the expense incurred for business and section 2(22) e cannot be invoked. A Coram consisting of Shri G Manjunatha, Accountant Member, and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member found that the alleged credit card transaction had happened due to an inadvertent allotment of the PAN Number which he never used for filing the return of income but the same was reflected in his credit card expenses and the alleged transaction of Rs.30,75,430/- was treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained expenses u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Kantilal Jain Vs ITO Ward-3(3)(1) Bangalore – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1309
The Bangalore Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the insurance premium paid which wasn’t claimed deduction under section 80C of the Income Tax Act,1961 cannot be taxed. The Single member bench consists of Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant member observed that the error has happened because the tax has been deducted on the entire amount contemplated u/s 194DA of the Act which was noticed while increasing the TDS rate from 1% to 5% albeit, in the financial bill 2019.
ACIT, Vs Rohit Bal Designs Pvt. Ltd – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1311
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessment order based on a standalone basis despite the fact of amalgamation is not sustainable and upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the CIT (A) has rightly allowed the Appeal filed by the Assessee by setting aside the Assessment Order and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue. The assessee was represented by Shri Kamal Bansal, C. A and the department was represented by Shri Girish Kumar Kohli.
Shri Pradip Mullick vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1297
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench deleted addition of Rupees one crore as addition was made on personal belief and imagination by Assessing Officer (AO). The Bench consisting of Rajpal Yadav, Vice President and Girish Agarwal, Accountant Member observed that “From the documents placed on record, it emanates that these are all small vendors supplying perishable items viz. fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese etc. Considering the nature of expenses, trading results, sales, purchases and the gross profit, more particularly owing to the nature of business of assessee comprising of manufacturing and sale of sweets and confectionery, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision and the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”
Smt. Nilamben Sandipbhai Parikh vs The Addl. C.I.T – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1133
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad held that business loss cannot be disallowed as Assessing Officer has not rejected books of accounts. The Tribunal held that “The CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to compute the taxable income of the assessee but has not directed the business loss quantified by the assessee to be taken into cognizance. The books were never rejected by the Assessing Officer and thus business loss cannot be disallowed without taking cognizance of all the relevant aspects of the matter. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the taxable income thereby granting the business loss after verifying the quantification of the loss claimed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee is given the opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.”
Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1293
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (ITAT) has held that failure in payment of advance tax towards unexpected income doesn’t attract interest under section 234C(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and deleted the demand of interest. Shri Aby T Varkey, judicial member and Shri Gagan Goyal, accountant member while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, deleted the interest charged amounting to Rs. 12, 31,304/- u/s. 234C and allowed the ground of appeal raised by the appellant.
Asha Devi vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1313
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore upheld the revision order by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) as there was acceptance of information by assessee on source of cash deposits by Assessing Officer (AO) without enquiry. The Bench consisting of George George K, Judicial Member and Padmavathy S, Accountant Member observed that “In the present case, limited scrutiny was to be done for verification of cash deposits and the source of cash deposits from the safe custody account is not examined by the AO by calling for relevant details from the assessee. The AO ought to have examined the same to go into the root of these deposits whereas in the instant case, the AO has not questioned the information supplied by the assessee with regard to the source of cash deposits into the safe custody account and has simply accepted those details without further enquiry. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the AO has made any enquiry or taken a particular view by application of mind on the issue.”
M/s. Sundaram Finance Holdings Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1314
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai held that No disallowance of expenses can be made for exempt income u/s 14A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules,1962 while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Bench consisting of Mahavir Singh, Vice President, and Dipak P Ripote, Accountant Member held that” We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and gone through the entire case laws and we are of the view that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee and against Revenue that no disallowance of expenses can be made in respect of exempt income by invoking the provisions of s. 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the Rules while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act.”
Palla Simhachalam (HUF) vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1316
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Visakhapatnam Bench, has recently in the appeals filed before it by an Assessee, held that satisfaction is to be recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO), before the issue of a notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. “In the instant case, no such material has been brought before us by the ld. DR. In view of the above discussions, since the satisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing of notice U/s. 153C of the Act, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) U/s. 153C of the Act deserves to be set aside for all the impugned assessment years. It is ordered accordingly.”
Adinath Leasing And Finance P. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer– 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1318
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has in a recent appeal filed before it by the assessee, held that no addition can be made when a notice is issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) based solely on borrowed satisfaction.
M/s. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1317
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Mumbai, has, in a recent appeal filed by the revenue, held that the information received from the Directorate of Income tax (investigation), cannot be considered to be an information received from an external source. “I notice that the division bench has categorically held that the information received from Directorate of Income tax (investigation) cannot be considered to be an information received from an external source. In the instant case also, the addition has been made by the AO on the basis of information received from investigation wing, meaning thereby, it cannot be said that the facts of the present case would be covered by the exception mentioned in clause (e) of paragraph 10 of the Circular issued by CBDT, referred above. Accordingly, I hold that the present appeal of the assessee is hit by the monetary limits and hence the revenue is precluded from pursuing this appeal. Accordingly, I reject the appeal of the revenue holding that the tax effect involved in the issues contested by the revenue is less than the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT.”
N.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT-1 – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1321
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench, ruled that Rental income from Information Technology Park is Income from Business.The Bench consisting of Vikas Aswathy, Judicial Member and M Balaganesh, Accountant Member observed that “An undertaking which develops and operates, or maintain and operate an industrial park/SEZ notified in accordance with scheme framed and notified by the Government, the income from letting out of the premises/developing space along with other facilities in an industrial park, SEZ is to be charged to tax under the head ‘profits and gains of business’. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Magarpatta Township & Development Construction Co. Ltd., after considering the aforesaid circular has reiterated this position.”
AVA landmark LLP vs ACIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1319
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) New Delhi has held that the capital asset of a company transferred as a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) not amounts to transfer and addition to non-compliance with section 47 (xiiib) of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not sustainable. A Coram comprising of Sh. N K Billaiya, accountant member and Sh. Anubhav Sharma, judicial member observed that “AO had erred in expanding the definition of turnover to extent of including capital gains in the turnover for ascertaining that the threshold limit of Rs. 60 lakhs, is maintained by the assessee to get the benefit of Section 47(xiiib) of the Act.”
Shri Abdul Hakeem vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1322
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench refused to condone the delay of appeal filed in the absence of evidence or reason to justify the delay. A Coram of Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, judicial member &Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, accountant member observed that the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal to prove its case and declined to entertain the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex-parte.
Udayan Bhaskaran Nair vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1323
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench held that appeal can be filed only after intimation against which assessee is aggrieved. A Coram consisting of BR Baskaran, Accountant Member observed that “Without examining the intimation issued for AY 2010-11, it would not be possible for any authority to ascertain the reason for raising demand. As rightly pointed out by Ld CIT(A), an appeal for AY 2010-11 can be filed only on the basis of order/intimation, against which the assessee is aggrieved. In the absence of any such document, it will not be possible for any appellate authority to address the grievance of the assessee.”
Gupta Synthetics Ltd vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1320
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench held that offering Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land by fresh cheques, not acceptable on pretext that there is no cancellation of registered sale deed. The Bench consisting of Prashant Maharshi, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member observed that “The assessee’s claim that it had offered long term capital gain on sale of the land in A.Y. 2015-16 since it received the consideration of Rs.70 lakhs in F.Y. 2014-15 by way of fresh cheques is not acceptable on the pretext that there is no cancellation of registered sale deed.”
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1325
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Visakhapatnam Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it by the revenue, held that restoration of section 12 A registration, will entitle the assessee to get a tax exception under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/s. Sri Raghavendra Lorry Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1324
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that in cases of divergent views, the which is more beneficial to the assessee is to be adopted. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the assessee has not proved the ownership of assets to claim the depreciation and also that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case considered by the ITAT in ITA No.1799/Hyd/2013 dated 29/04/2014, we deem it appropriate to direct the AO to estimate net profit of 3% on gross receipts net of all deductions including depreciation.
ITO vs Sports Good Export Promotion Council – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1326
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Delhi Bench, has, on Friday, held that grants do not form the corpus of the assessee nor is it income of the assessee under Section 11 of the Act.
Tilak Proficient Nidhi Limited vs Income Tax Officer– 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1126
Acceptance of additional evidences filed by assessee without complying Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules is invalid, so was held by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Allahabad. The Bench consisting of Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member and Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member held that “The CIT simply accepted all the contentions /additional evidences filed by the assessee, without complying with Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules, as it was incumbent on CIT to have forwarded all these additional evidences/explanations filed by assessee to the AO for its remand report/comments/rebuttal. Thus, there is clearly a breach of Rule 46A of the 1962 Rule, which had made appellate order passed by CIT unsustainable in the eyes of law.
M/s.Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited vs Assistant Director of Income-tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1327
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the revised return filed not amounts to the non-filing of the return and deny of a lower tax rate under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not valid. A Coram of Shri George George K, JM & Ms Padmavathy S, AM noticed that the assessee has filed the return within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the act. Further observed that the assessee has filed a revised return subsequently cannot deny the fact that the assessee has not filed the return u/s 139(1) of the Act.
Smt. Bhanuben Dhanji Shah vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax– 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1328
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench Addition directs de novo adjudication for non-consideration of report by Department Valuation Officer (DVO) in respect of addition made under Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). The Bench consisting of Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member observed that “Since the impugned addition under the head “Long Term Capital Gain”, which was upheld by the CIT(A), has been made on the basis of value determined by the Registration Authority without taking into consideration the report of the Department Valuation Officer, we deem it fit and proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.”
Shri. Ramzanali Asgar Khan vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1329
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that addiction under section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961on scrap sale will invalidate the corresponding sales and relevant expenditure charged to the profit and loss account. It was observed that the assessee was not able to produce any details of the buyers to whom the scrap was sold and has not produced any stock records for the generation of the scraps from year to year.
M/s Springer Verlag GmbH vs D.C.I.T – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1332
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi Bench granted full credit of TDS on the ground that Commission Income is not ‘managerial service’ under India Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Bench consisting of N K Billaiya, Accountant Member and N K Choudhry, Judicial Member held that “Managerial services entail the element of management of the business of the service recipient in a substantial manner. In our view, mere provision of support services cannot be labelled as managerial services. Hiring of outside parties to receive support in respect of the operational aspects of a business cannot qualify as managerial services unless the service provider lays down policies or executes such policies by managing the personnel of the service recipient. We do not find any merit in the findings of the CIT(A) by treating the commission as ‘managerial service’ under the India Germany DTAA.”
M/s Shimas Network Pvt. Ltd vs The CIT(A) – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1334
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the demand for late fees under section 234 E of the Income Tax Act,1961 on TDS default before 01/06/2015 is not sustainable. In light of the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and held that the fee u/s. 234E cannot be levied without machinery provision of sec. 200A prior to 01/06/2015.
Mr. Nitin Parkash vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1335
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench set aside penalty order on existence of ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer on charge under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bench consisting of Vikas Aswathy, Judicial Member and M Balaganesh, Accountant Member observed that “In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. However, while levying penalty vide order dated 31/03/2016, the Assessing Officer has time and again mentioned both the limbs/charge of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “inaccurate particulars of income” and “concealment of income”. This expression has been used in the penalty order repeatedly in varied forms. Thus, there was ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer about the exact charge under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty is to be levied.”
M/s. Hebe Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs Assessing Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1331
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi Bench directs to delete disallowance of employees’ contribution to EPF and ESI as contribution was made before due date for filing return of income. The Bench consisting of Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member and Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member observed that “We observe that recently this Tribunal in a batch of appeals in the cases of Raj Kumar Vs. ITO CPC Bangaluru and other appeals and by considering various decisions rendered by various High Courts and the Tribunals held that the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 is effective from 1.04.2021 and no disallowance is called for, on belated payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF in case the assessee deposited the said contribution before due date for filing of return of income under Income Tax Act.”
H. Omkarappa vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1333
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restores the matter to AO as the addition of unexplained investment deleted without verifying books of account. A Coram of the Shri George George K, Judicial Member and Ms Padmavathy S, Accountant Member observed that the CIT(Appeals) has not verified whether the balance was correctly reflected in the assessee’s books of accounts. Further viewed that this issue needs to be examined based on facts and evidence to verify whether the amount offered income or turnover of the assessee.
Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1337
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad Bench, while deciding a group of appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue, held that interest income from staff loans and advances as well as fixed deposits and advances, are to be treated as business income.
M/s. Karthik Estate vs Principal Commissioner of Income – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1342
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore (ITAT), has quashed the revisional order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) as acceptance of returned income was done by Assessing Officer (AO) after proper inquiry. The Division Bench consisting of NV Vasudevan, Vice President and Padmavathy S, Accountant Member observed that “On perusal of the above facts, it is evident that the assessee has no other source of income other than business income which fact has been repeatedly submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities. The AO has conducted enquiry and perused the details submitted and has taken a decision to accept the explanation provided by the assessee after proper application of mind.”
Manibhadra Securities Services P. Ltd. vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1341
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench deleted addition of Rupees One Crore as Loan received represents unexplained cash loan credit books of accounts. The Bench consisting of Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member and Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member observed that “After considering the facts in totality we hold that the amount of loan received by the assessee represents the unexplained cash credit in its books of accounts. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
ICICI Bank Limited vs ACIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1343
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench ruled that Interest expenses on perpetual bonds, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby granting relief to ICICI Bank. The Bench consisting of Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member observed that “The A.O has failed to controvert the undisputed fact that assessee has issued innovative perpetual debt instruments (IPDI) which carry a fixed rate of interest. The holder of these instruments had no right in management of the assessee bank.”
Integra Engineering India Ltd vs A.C.I.T – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1339
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad Bench, has, in a recent appeal filed before it, held that advance given to a subsidiary company for the purpose of business is to be allowed as business loss incidental to the business.
ACIT vs M/s. Precision Realtors P – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1340
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) New Delhi held that the claim of deduction based on compensation paid for settlement of encroachment on the property is not allowable as business expenditure in the absence of evidence. A Coram comprising Sh. N K Billaiya, Accountant Member and Ms Astha Chandra, Judicial Member viewed that if there were no encroachments, no encumbrances on the impugned property. The Tribunal restores the matter to the CIT(A) file to examine every sale deed and verify whether the impugned property was encroached/ encumbered by the occupants to whom the assessee paid compensation.
MRF Limited vs The DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1345
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed to reconsider the warranty claim by MRF Tyres in the appeal which challenges the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in ITAT dated 31.07.2019 which confirmed the action of AO in disallowing the provision for warranty amounting to Rs.5.66 Crores in AY 2011-12, Rs.4.65 Crores in AY 2012-13 and Rs.10.14 Crores in AY 2012-13. A Coram of Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that the details submitted by the assessee can’t be verified by the Tribunal and therefore remitted the matter to the file of the AO. The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Anand And Anand vs ACIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1344
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) New Delhi has held that disallowance on account of TDS payable is not sustained when the assessee has shown the expenditure in his account. A Coram comprising of Sh. N K Billaiya, accountant member and Sh. Anubhav Sharma, a judicial member observed that the amount of TDS is to be considered as the sum paid by the assessee on behalf of the recipient of the income and directed that the impugned amount of TDS be granted as a deduction. The appeal was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
