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 November 5 to November 11, 2022
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs M/s Nishrin Trading and Investment Pvt Ltd – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1616
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that reopening of assessment based on the investigation wing’s information is valid when the company is found to be an alleged beneficiary receiving share application money. Allowing the Revenue’s appeal while dismissing the cross objection filed by the assessee, the Tribunal ruled that “We find no absurdity in the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer. In this context, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is to be dismissed.”
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs M/s Nishrin Trading and Investment Pvt Ltd -2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1616
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that addition can be made in respect of share application money, upon the failure of the assesse to prove creditworthiness of the concerns involved or the genuineness of the transaction.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs G.S. Atwal & Company (Engineers) Pvt. Limited – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1633
The Kolkata Bench of ITAT has held that GST paid on the sale of the byproduct of coal and total purchase price collected as a middleman cannot be added u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was observed that there is no fresh information available regarding the Revenue. Four years have expired from the end of the relevant years and, therefore, protection provided to the assessee in the proviso appended to section 147 is available. A Coram of Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member viewed that the assessee has worked as an agent, where it took the money from the ultimate purchasers of the coal residua and had paid sales tax/GST on the sales made by it.
M/s. Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1406
The ITAT of Bangalore Bench held that Enhancing book profit for amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 is not a mistake apparent on record, cannot be rectified by rectification order. The Bench consisting of N V Vasudevan, Vice President and Padmavathy S, Accountant Member observed that “In the given case enhancing the book profit for the amount disallowed u/s.14A is not a mistake apparent on record but is subject to interpretations and hence cannot be rectified by an order passed u/s.154. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(Appeals).”
M/s. DSG Papers Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1209
The ITAT of Chandigarh Bench has held that Assessing Officer fails to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and deletes addition on account of additional net profit. The division bench was presided by Mr. N. K. Saini, Vice President, and Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member observed that the additions on account of the undisclosed/additional net profit on search alleged unaccounted sales have been made only based on invoices recovered from the residence of Shri Sanjay Dhawan as well as the statements of S/Shri Gulshan Gaba, Naveen Salley, Sudhir Sethi, Manish Jain, and Shiv Charan Lal.
M/s. Kumar Construction vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1634
The ITAT of Patna Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while restricting the net profit rate of 6% in civil contract business, held that 8% income over the gross revenue is unjustifiable. “We after considering the rival submission of the parties on this issue and material available on record as well as going through the Paper Book submitted by the assessee to substantiate its claim and also perusing the affidavit filed by the individual assessee in this regard and the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, find force in the submission made by the assessee.” “Therefore, we allow the claim of the assessee and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 12,20,000/- in the hands of the assessee.”, allowing the assessee’s appeal the Bench ruled.
Royal Canin India Private Limited vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1632
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that the TPO shall not step into the shoes of the assessee to decide the prudence of the expenditure. “The TPO cannot step into the shoes of assessee to decide prudence of expenditure. The TPO failed to examine the documents furnished by assessee to benchmark the transaction by applying one of the methods specified in Chapter-X of the Act. Thus, in the facts of the case and in the light of decisions refered, we hold that the findings of the TPO/Assessing Officer in making adjustment in respect of franchise fee are unsustainable.”, allowing the assessee’s appeal the Bench ruled.
M/s. Global Paper Impex Ltd vs Dy. CIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1635
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that section 153c is to be applied for assessment proceedings, based on material seized from third party. “we are of the considered view that the assessment framed in this case by the AO under section 144 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable as the same was required to be framed under section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, hence ordered to be quashed without entering into merits of this case.” “Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed”, the Bench ruled.
M/s Urmila Properties Pvt. Ltd vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1593
Details and evidence to prove the identity & creditworthiness of share subscribers were submitted by the assessee, the Kolkata Bench of ITAT held that the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not permissible. It was contended that the Assesseehad reproduced documents and explained the identity, creditworthiness and financials etc. of each of the share subscriber companies individually. It was observed that in the assessment order that the AO has not even mentioned the names of the share subscriber companies and even has not mentioned a word as to which of the share subscriber company or the corresponding transaction thereof was not genuine and on what grounds.
Kaliannan Ganesan vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1472
The ITAT of Chennai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that additions merely based on presumptions are not maintainable when no defects can be found in the books of accounts of the assesse.
South West Drilling and Infrastructure Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1056
The Delhi Bench of ITAT has held thatcircuitous rotation of unaccounted money is not a genuine loan transaction and upholds addition u/s 68. The Tribunal held that “we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Revenue authorities below and hence we uphold the same”. Mr. Abhishek Kumar appeared on behalf of the revenue.
M/s 360 Realtors LLP vs Asst. Director of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1636
The ITAT of Delhi Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that contribution to EPF and ESI funds are allowable, if paid before due date of filing income tax return. allowing the assessee’s appeal, it held: “Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.58,72,654.”
Mr.Komara Gounder Chinnusamy vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1591
The ITAT of Chennai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to redo assessment, once the same is completed by the Assessing Officer (A.O). “In our considered view, once the AO has taken view on the issue, then there is no scope for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to substitute his view and direct the Assessing Officer to make assessment in a particular manner. We find that the issue has been thoroughly dealt with and that it is after being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the AO has completed the assessment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the PCIT has completely erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the income tax Act, and thus, we quash the order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act ”.
Janardhan Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1440
The ITAT of New Delhi confirmed the addition of capital gain by disallowing cost of purchase and cost of improvement on failure to produce relevant evidence. The Bench consisting of Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member observed that “We note that several notices have been sent to the assessee but they have returned unserved. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the issue by hearing the Departmental Representative and perusing the records. We find that as emanating from the facts narrated above, the revenue authorities have disallowed the assessee’s claim of cost of purchase and cost of improvement de hors any corroborative evidences.”
Amadeus IT Group SA vs ACIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1611
The Delhi Bench of ITAT has held that more than 15% of the revenues generated from India can’t be attributed to the PE in India when the risk assumed in earlier years had not changed. It was observed that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998- 99, after considering the extent of activities in India and abroad, the assets employed and risks assumed, held “15% of the revenues relating to the bookings made from India as attributable to the assessee’s PE in India.”
Altico Capital India Pvt. Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1031
The upward adjustment on international transactions for “payments of interest on Fully Convertible Debentures (FCD)” was deleted by the Mumbai bench of ITAT. The Tribunal observed that there was no change in facts and the methodology adopted by the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction of “Payment of Interest on FCDs” accepted in the prior years.
Oracle Systems Corporation vs Assistant Director of Income-tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1637
The ITAT of Delhi Bench, has recently, while deciding the appeals filed before it, held that when there is no material to form ‘reason to believe’, re-assessment cannot be made by the income tax department. Subsequently, in the course of assessment proceeding for the assessment year 2001-02, the Assessing Officer observed that while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, the issue of royalty on software sales was discussed only on the stand-point of rate of tax applicable to the income from royalty, i.e, whether it is to be taxed at 30% as per section 115A or at 15% as claimed by the assessee, and that no other issue was taken up for consideration.
Vertex Securities Ltd. vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1638
The ITAT of Cochin Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that, stamp duty collected from customers shall be treated as trading receipt under 43b(a), and that the same is allowable. “In this case, the assessee has collected an amount of Rs.4,72,412/- towards stamp duty and same has not been paid to the Government within the stipulated date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. made a plea that this amount has been paid within the due date of filing return of income without furnishing any evidence to support the same.” “Once the assessee has collected the said amount from the customers, it is incumbent upon the assessee to pay the same before due date of filing return of income. However, assessee shown it as a liability in its balance sheet and having enriched by said amount, the assessee is liable to be included in the income of the assessee.”, dismissing the assessee’s claim the ITAT Bench ruled.
Symantec Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1639
The ITAT of Delhi Bench, has recently, while deciding an appeal filed before it, held that sale consideration of software products is not taxable as royalty under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA.
Kothari Brothers vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1603
The ITAT of Ahmedabad held that Assessing Officer (AO) should take cognizance of claim made by assessee on filing of revised returns and should proceed in assessment stage: ITAT. A Single Bench consisting of Suchitra Kamble, Accountant Member observed that “Once the revised returns were filed, the Assessing Officer should take cognisance of the claim made by the assessee and accordingly should proceed in assessment stage. Once the threshold of assessment proceedings based on original return filed by the assessee, the revised return should be taken into account and precondition to revise comes in consonance with the filing of the original return. “
Jyoti Swaroop Kashuka Vs ITO, – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1644
The ITAT Kolkata bench has held that since the assessee has duly offered the capital gain out of sale proceeds under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not sustainable. Granting relief to the assessee, the Tribunal held that “The factual matrix in the present case evidently demonstrates that a mistake was committed which was mitigated by the assessee and the relevant income arising from the transaction of sale of shares erroneously executed in the account of the assessee, was duly reported in the return of income of the individual, which was offered by the individual in the IDS 2016 and was accepted in the scrutiny assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act of the individual. We note that addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is without going into the actual facts of the case.”
ACIT vs Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1643
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently, while deciding an appeal filed before it, held that the value of shares determined by merchant banker shall be taken for the computation of perquisite and TDS liability.Dismissing the Revenue’s appeal the ITAT held that “In the view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue – in- dispute, and we accordingly uphold the same”.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority vs Dy. Director of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1640
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, directed the Income Tax Department to Re-Consider the case, if Activities of Slum Rehabilitation Authority constitutes “Charitable” in Nature. The AO further held that the main source of funds for the assessee were various fees and levies raised for the approval of plan from the developers, interest income etc , and also that the assessee was providing deferment facilities to various builders/developers , along with which it was providing instalment facilities also,for which interest was charged at the rate of 16% to 18% per annum. Accordingly, the AO, by applying provisions of section 2(15), as amended with effect from 01/04/2009, held that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under section 11 in view of provision of section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act and hence that the entire income of the assessee was liable to tax.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax vs Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri– 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1641
In a significant ruling, the Jaipur bench of the ITAT has held that the assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made solely based on the pen drive recovered from the employee of the assessee is invalid.
Concluding the appeal, the Tribunal observed that “Since the issue is revolving about the PEN Drive found, the bench asked both the partieswhether any finding of any person recorded and/or the statement of the person under whose possession this PEN drive found is recorded or not? In response it has been confirmed that there is no finding about the veracity of this PEN drive in the orders of the lower authorities. Therefore, working recorded in this PEN drive is merely an information recorded by that person and whatever financial transaction related to that information is recorded in the books and are already explained before the lower authorities and there is not dispute on this aspect. The revenue has made this addition in the hands of the assessee as protective addition only based on working made in this PEN drive.”
Sh. Vinod Jindal vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1642
The ITAT of Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that once addition is set aside by the Tribunal, subsequent penalty cannot survive. “while deciding assessee’s quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No. 839/Del/2017, dated 30.06.2022 has deleted addition of Rs. 1 lakh made on account of unexplained cash. Whereas, the addition made of Rs.23,54,184/- on account of unexplained jewellery has been restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Thus, additions based on which penalty under section 271AAA was imposed by the Assessing Officer, as of now, do not survive.”
M/s. ASI Industries Ltd vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1597
CIT(A) cannot disallow Compensation paid to Taparies When a Complete list and evidence are submitted by the assessee, the Mumbai Bench of ITAT held as above.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) is not allowed to decide the issue merely based on conjuncture and surmises without controverting the evidence brought on record by the assessee. Further set aside the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance made/confirmed in this case on account of compensation paid to taparies. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Shri Ashok Kumar V. vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1647
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while upholding the reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held that non-filing of income tax return amounts to escapement of income. “If there is reasonable information on the basis of which a reasonable person can form a requisite belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, then proceedings under section 147 of the Act can be validly initiated. Further, it is also well settled that sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of recording of reasons.” “Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO had “reason to believe” on the basis of tangible material for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.”, dismissing the assessee’s claim, the ITAT Bench ruled.
Ajashy Engineering Sales Vs ITO Ward – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1649
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench has recently held that late deposit of Provident Fund(PF), Employees State Insurance (ESI), or Employees Provident Fund (EPF) is not a sufficient reason for disallowing the claims as long as the deposit has been made before the due date to file the Income Tax Return (ITR) of the relevant assessment year. The tribunal of Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Anil Chaturvedi, ruling in favor of the assessee, observed that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 does not apply to the assessment year under consideration.
Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asst. Commissioner-of Income Tax -2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1648
The Chennai Bench of ITAT has recently held that payments provided for services rendered by marketing partners such as provision of pre-sale and after sale product services to the customers are taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as per the definition given in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1971. It was further observed by the Tribunal that “as per Explanation-2 to Section 9(2) of the Act, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under Clause (v) or Clause (vi) or Clause (vii) of sub-section (1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-resident”. Examining the nature of services provided by the marketing partner, it was held that, “services rendered by M/s.SSG Technologies, LLC, definitely comes under ‘FTS’ as defined under Explanation-2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act” as “the scope of agreement clearly specifies the nature of services to be rendered by marketing partner and as per said agreement, the assessee will train the resources of marketing partner to provide pre-sale and after sale product services to the customers”.
Fidelity Diagnostics P. Ltd vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1645
The Pune bench of the ITAT has held that the referral fee paid to the doctors and nursing home would not be allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same is violative of Medical Council (Professional Conducts, Etiquettes and Ethics) Regulation Act, 2002. A bench of S. S. Godara (Judicial Member)and Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) observed tha “In the light of authoritative pronouncement of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue on hand, we are of the considered opinion that referral fees paid to doctors and nursing home cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the business income of an assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities. Thus, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the appellant-assessee.”
Kamal Jafferali Wadhwania vs ITO – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1646
The Mumbai bench of ITAT has held that the TDS provisions of section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to AC maintenance, and common area maintenance charges to the mall owner as the same would fall under section 194C of the Act. A two-Member Tribunal comprising Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member observed that “it is abundantly clear that sec 194I is applicable only in case of rent may be on plant and machinery (@ the rate of 2%) and for the use any land or building or land appurtenant to a building. In this case assessee is paying a rent/lease charges for the office premises which includes AC etc. and charges for the same already included in the rent. But the extra assessee is paying is for AC maintenance (not AC rent) housekeeping, security and common area maintenance charges. These payments nowhere related to sec 194I maybe the same has been fixed on a Lum sum basis pm. For these charges the relation of assessee is not of lessor and lessee but of contractor and service taker, which falls in the category of as defined in sec 194C.”The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the TDS provisions of section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to AC maintenance, and common area maintenance charges to the mall owner as the same would fall under section 194C of the Act.
Anita Jayant Oswal vs DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1650
The ITAT of Pune Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that capital gain exemption u/s 54 cannot be claimed for multiple flats. “The contention of the ld. AR that the appellant is entitled to the exemption u/s 54 in respect of the investment made into two flats cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik vs. ITO. Hence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed.”
Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-1(2)(1) – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1656
While allowing relief to M/s Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited, ITAT of Mumbai bench has held that the Company is eligible for the benefit of Indo-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A bench of Shri Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) & Shri Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) observed that all the participants in IDR facility are identical except the IDR holders. “The holder of IDR in present case is assessee instead of Morgan Stanley Mauritius Co. Ltd. The Tribunal held that in so far as the fact that dividend income is received by assessee in India is not in dispute, hence, the findings of authorities below cannot be faulted in holding that the money is received by the assessee therein from Indian Depository in respect of dividend paid by Standard Chartered Bank Plc UK is taxable in India, hence, the findings of the authorities below to that extent were confirmed by the Tribunal,” the Tribunal said.
Umeshkuamr Harilal Shah vs Umeshkuamr Harilal Shah -2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1651
The Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT has held that tax liability under section 206 C of the Income Tax Act,1961 will arise when the assessee failed to file Form 27C and Tax Collect at Source(TCS)exempted on the sale of scrap. The ITAT bench of Ms Suchitra Kamble, a judicial member observed that the assessee has not filed prescribed Form 27C thereby exempting the seller to collect tax under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and held that “the Assessing Officer, as well as CIT(A), has rightly made tax liability including interest under Section 206C of the Act.” The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Techna Infrastructure Pvt. Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1654
The ITAT of Kolkata Bench, has recently while deciding an appeal filed before it, held that excess depreciation claim cannot vitiate the benefit of reduced tax rate u/s 115BAA. “In these given circumstances, we allow this appeal and vacate the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals). It is to be treated that the appeal of the assessee ought to have been rendered as redundant or infructuous instead of making any observation. Thus the appeal of assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals) would be treated as dismissed being infructuous. Any observation made by ld. CIT(Appeals) stands vacated.”, allowing the assessee’s appeal the ITAT Bench held.
Polyvet Pharmaceuticals Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1653
The ITAT of Hyderabad Bench, has recently in appeals filed before it, while refusing to condone a delay of 2886 days, held that delay condonation cannot be done without proving reasonable cause. dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Delhi ITAT observed that “In the light of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.”
Shri Ashok Kumar vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1652
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that disallowance under section 14 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be more than the exempt income.Dismissing the assessee’s claim the ITAT Bench held that “Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). And as a result, this ground raised in assessee’s appeal is dismissed”.
M/s. Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs The Asstt. C.P.C. TDS – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1655
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ( ITAT ) Pune Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held the levy of late fee for TDS default u/s 234E of Income Tax Act, post 01-06-2015, to be valid. dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the ITAT Bench ruled: “Therefore the incidence of charging late fees u/s 234E of the Act initiated by the Department is post 01-06-2015. In view of this, the NFAC was justified in confirming the order of the A.O in levying the late fees u/s 234E of the Act. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the NFAC and the same is upheld”.
Sasanur Hospital vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1658
The Bangalore Bench of ITAT directed assessment as per Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) guidelines on Cash deposited during demonetization period. The Coram consisting of Beena Pillai, Judicial Member and Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member observed that “We uphold the order passed by the Pr.CIT and the AO is directed make fresh assessment in accordance with law following the CBDT guidelines in regard to cash deposited during the demonetization period.’’
Super Sales India Ltd vs The DCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1659
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench allowed depreciation as there was Purchase of windmill and the same was capitalised in the books of account. A Division Bench consisting of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that “The assessee purchased this machinery indigenously and hence, provisions of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not apply. But since the assessee has capitalized and claimed depreciation in spread over years and assessments have become final and in this year. “
Pawan M. Shah vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1657
The ITAT of Mumbai Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that no addition shall be made on the ground of typographical error in the Income Tax Return by the assessee. allowing the assessee’s appeal, the Mumbai ITAT ruled that “We direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 8,57,000 made to the total income of the assesse”
M/s.Global E-Business Operations Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1660
The Bangalore Bench of ITAT allowed deduction as leave encashment was paid as per Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act, 1961. A Division Bench consisting of George George K, Judicial Member and Padmavathy S, Accountant Member held that “Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the assessee did not claim a sum amounting to Rupees seven crores being leave encashment actually being paid during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2016-2017 we are of the view that the assessee should be allowed leave encashment actually paid as per provisions of section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
SKF Engineering & Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd. vs JCIT – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1663
The Bangalore Bench of ITAT has held that the provision for liquidated damages is an ascertained liability and is allowable as a deduction from Income. The ITAT bench of Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Ms Padmavathy S., Accountant Member observed that the provision is made based on the terms agreed with the customer and it relates to the period relevant for the year under consideration and held that “the provision made for liquidated damages is an ascertained liability and should be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance made by the AO in this regard is deleted.”
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s.Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1662
The ITAT of Pune Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that the right to collect toll falls within the definition of commercial rights or intangible asset, and hence that the same is eligible for depreciation.Dismissing the Revenues appeal, the Pune ITAT ruled that “Faced with this situation, we affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge.”
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1661
The Mumbai bench of ITAT while quashing an order withholding of tax,has held that the provisions of TDS not applicable to the payment of credit/debit card commission to the domestic banks. A Two-Member Tribunal comprising Mr.B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) and Shri Rahul Chaudhary, (Judicial Member) noted that the issue raised by the Revenue stands decided favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in ITO (TDS) (OSD)-3(4) vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., while examining the liability of the Assessee to withhold tax under Section 194H of the Act from payment of credit card collection charges to the banks, held that the commission to bank on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards is not liable to TDS under section 194H of the Act.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
