This weekly summary analyses the major Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) stories that were covered by Taxscan.in the week before, from April 16th to April 22n, 2023.
The ITAT was established in 1941 and has benches in various cities across India. The decisions of the ITAT are binding on both the taxpayer and the Income Tax Department. The ITAT is a specialized tribunal that deals with income tax matters only and is considered an important institution in the Indian tax system.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that Capital gain exemptions under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are beneficial provisions, therefore it should be interpreted liberally. Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessee has not fulfilled the procedural requirement laid down by the law of depositing sale proceeds into the capital gain account scheme with a nationalized bank before the due date of furnishing of return,
The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of GST refund filed beyond limitation amidst Covid situation, thereby granting relief to 44 EMB Studio Private Limited, the petitioner. The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though it is correct that for part of the claim which has been rejected refund was sought after a period of two years, however, the period was extended by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation.
Assessee Arya Kshatriya Samaj is a Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1951 and the assessee was also duly registered under the provisions of section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal observed that the provisions of Income Tax Act had not conferred any discretion on the assessing authority or the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the return of income.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the revision order holding that the interest awarded under land acquisition act would not be Taxable. The Land Acquisition Collector deducted the tax at source from the interest which was deposited to the account of Central Govt. In the return filed by the assessee the interest was shown as taxable income since the issue regarding taxability of interest of compensation was not settled. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted penalty under Section under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act 1961 holding that once penalty is levied for non-maintenance of books of accounts no further default could be made for not getting the same audited under Section 44AB of the Act. The Division Bench of S. Seethalakshmi, (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayant bhai, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty observing that, “once the penalty is levied for non-maintenance of book of accounts, there cannot be further default for not getting the same audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act and therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271B is not justified.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no disallowance shall be made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in compliance with the Section 194C (6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had filed the TDS return giving the details of payment made transporters on which TDS has not been made. Apart from the same as per provision of Section 194C (6), no tax needed to be deducted at the time of making payments to the transporters, if the transporter furnished his PAN to the person making the payment.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) shall be applicable on the payment made to oilstone UAE in the absence of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) provision in Indo-UAE DTAA. The Division Bench of Waseem Ahmed, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the department holding that the payment for designing of towers made to Oilstone UAE was in the nature of FTS and not royalty. “Since the payment do not qualify as FTS under the India UAE Tax Treaty in absence of FTS clause in the said treaty, we are of the considered view, that there was no requirement for the assessee to withhold taxes on such payments made to Oilstone UAE,” the Bench further observed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed for de novo adjudication finding the statement recorder under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961 without considering the documents and evidence produced. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee has preferred an appeal out of the addition made in respect of excess stock found during the survey operation, sustained addition and further sustained addition on account of excess cash found. Aggrieved by the deletion of the addition the Department has filed appeal against sustaining addition the assessee has filed and the grounds mentioned above.
The Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has recently held that deduction on sale commission is not allowable if genuine expenditure cannot be ascertained. S. N. Soparkar, counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has been paying commission for the past many years and which has never been disallowed in scrutiny assessment. That is the earlier years the Department accepted the payment of commission to various agents.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently while granting relief to Lenovo India held that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) is the most appropriate method for determining international transactions for the computation of Price Length Index(PLI). The tribunal, while considering the case, observed that CUP is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of the assessee for the importing of goods for manufacturing.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently observed that the payment has been made voluntarily by them out of appreciation for the employee and thus falls outside the rigours of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Coram comprising R.S. Syal (Vice President) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) observed that the Department could not produce any documents or evidence on record to show that the payment received from the employer was coupled with some legal obligation on the part of the employer to pay the employee.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that no penalty should be levied under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited. K.P.R.R. Murthy, counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee is duty-bound to obtain the Audit Report before the specified date. In the instant case, the assessee obtained its audit report with a delay of 123 days therefore, the CIT(A) was fully justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a recent case, the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that cash paid to sundry creditor on supply of buffalo meat could not be disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and set aside the assessment order passed by the lower authority. K. Sampath, counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance is being made on the ground that the payments are being made in cash and higher than Rs.20,000/-. The two member bench of tribunal, observed that disallowance under Section 40A(3) in this case has not been made on the basis of anything found from the assessee’s books. Rather this case has been made out that the suppliers did not maintain books of account and the same could not be traced.
The Jodhpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), refused to quash and stay the operation of order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)) on revision of erroneous order prejudicial to interests of revenue. The Coram comprising Kul Bharat, Judicial Member and Maneesh Borad, Accountant Member observed that “In our considered view, any issue which was considered by the AO in the assessment order, such order would be open for revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, if such order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of justice. There is no infirmity in the order of CIT(E) in revising the assessment under section 263 of the Act.”
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Hyderabad bench held that Levy of penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded would meet the ends of justice and set aside the order passed by the assessing officer. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee could not prove that the stock did not pertain to him and that the assessee could not produce any material evidence in this regard. The Tribunal of K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda, (Accountant Member) observed that “levy of penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded will meet the ends of justice”.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) available in the year in which Income had been reported should not be deferred to some other assessment year as per Section 199(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with rule 37BA (3). The Division Bench of Anil Chaturvedi, (Accountant Member) and C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) was unable to see any conclusion or findings by the authorities below to show whether tax credit for TDS reflected in Form No.26AS for relevant assessment years had been claimed or otherwise in that assessment year. Thus, verification and examination of the factual position were required to rule out the possibility of a double claim by the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the penalty on finding that the issue of defective notice was without striking off the irrelevant limb. The Bench referred to the decision of Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT quashed the impugned order and deleted the penalty holding that, “Issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, quashed an order passed u/s 143(3) by the AO, as the same was passed without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 143(2). Finally, the Chandigarh ITAT held that “Respectfully following the proposition of the law laid down in these orders stated above, we hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the assessing authority passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act without issuing mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order is, hereby, quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.”
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently while upholding the decision of lower authority held that no Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) is required to be deducted on payments made to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) For External Development Charges (EDC). The tribunal relied upon the decision of the BPTP Ltd. vs. PCIT and observed that EDC are in the nature of statutory fees.
The Pune bench of Satbeer Singh Godara, (Judicial Member) and Dipak P. Ripote, (Accountant Member) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Trust formed for Bramhakshatriya Community was not eligible for Income Tax exemption. Thereafter, the tribunal concluded through the observation reached that “Faced with the situation and in light of the fact that the CIT(E)’s order is also a non-speaking one to this extent we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s substantive grievance back to the very authority for appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on account of non- submission of TDS statement due to reasonable cause, upheld the deletion of income tax penalty. Shri S.M. Joshi, the JCIT-DR, observed as follows: “We have heard the DR who has relied upon the order of the AO. It is noticed that ld. DR except relying upon the order of the AO has not advanced any arguments to contradict the findings of the ld. CIT(A).”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that the failure of the CIT(A) to provide document verification opportunity to the AO, violates the provisions of Rule 46A (3) of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, allowing the Revenue’s appeal, the ITAT held “Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c), held that the claim of the assessee cannot be said to be “concealment of particulars of income” in the absence of supporting evidence. “In our considered view, the claim of the assessee at the most can be regarded as “inaccurate claim” which cannot be equated with the furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income”. It is for the reason that nothing has been brought on record by the authorities below suggesting that the assessee has furnished the particulars of income with dishonest intent.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that authorities should not pass orders in a casual manner, disregarding the principles of natural justice. Thus, allowing the assessee’s appeal, the ITAT held that “It is clear therefore that both the authorities below have passed orders in a very casual manner, totally ignoring the pleadings of the assessee and in complete disregard to the principles of natural justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. In view of the above, I set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) being a cryptic and non-speaking order. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that TDS under section 194IA is applicable, only when consideration for transfer of immovable property is more than Rs.50 lac. It was the submission of Shri Hemant Chhajed, C.A, the Counsel for the assessee that there was a transaction of purchase of immovable property on 3-09-2014 for a consideration of 1.20 crores and that the same was carried out by four persons. Thus, the ITAT finally held: “In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, with regard to a search conducted within 6 preceding years of the relevant AY, upheld the Income Tax Proceedings under section 153C. Thus, allowing the Revenue’s appeal, the Delhi ITAT held that “Since, the ld CIT(A) has not decided the issues involved in the appeal on merit, we deem it fit to direct the ld CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit. Accordingly, by upholding the validity of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act on the legal issue, we direct the ld CIT(A) to decide the appeal filed by the assessee on merit after hearing the assessee. In the result, an appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it held that when assessment order itself turns to be null and void, the same cannot be a subject matter of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, allowing the assessee’s appeal, the ITAT held: “In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that since the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad itself was null and void, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. In the result, we are allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of jurisdiction itself. We are accordingly not separately adjudicating into the merits of the case. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that no interest under Section 234A is leviable, when an Assessee has filed the return within the time allowed by notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Thus, allowing the assessee’s appeal, the Jodhpur ITAT held that “No interest is leviable under Section 234A of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) findings of the ld. CIT(A) allows the grounds raised by the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, while dismissing the appeals filed before it, held that the jurisdiction of the bench shall be determined by the location of the assessing officer. “In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the present appeals are not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, hence, are dismissed. Accordingly, we do so”, the Coram comprising G.S Pannu, the President and Saktijit Ray, the Judicial Member held.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that belated return cannot be submitted after the expiry of one year from the end of the Assessment Year (AY). Thus, allowing the assessee’s appeal, the Jodhpur ITAT held that “Hence, in this view of the matter, order passed by the AO under Section 154 is not in accordance with law and we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while directing the AO to delete the penalty-imposed under Section 271(1) (C), held that additions cannot be made on estimation basis. Thus, allowing the assessee’s appeal, the Jodhpur ITAT held that considering the binding precedent as relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, direct the AO to delete the penalty-imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are hence, allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that once penalty is levied for non-maintenance of book of accounts, no further default is to be imposed for not getting the same audited under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. “The penalty under Section. 271B can be levied when the assessee maintains the books and not get them audited but once it has been held and not disputed that the assessee has not maintained the books, how the penalty for not getting the books audited be levied. Finally, the Jaipur ITAT held that “Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B is not justified and thus vacated. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held the penalty proceedings-initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as non- sustainable, when notices issued by the A.O turned to be bad in law, being vague. “The decisions relied upon by the ld. DR are misplaced and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is directly on the point.”, relying upon various precedents of the Delhi High court in this regard, the ITAT added.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while upholding the disallowance, held that payment to minors and unregistered firms by co-operative banks is violative of S. 194A. Thus, dismissing the assessee’s claims while partly allowing the appeal, the Pune ITAT held: “In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the AO has rightly invoked provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed interest paid to minor and unregistered firm hence, the said addition is confirmed. Accordingly, ground no.4 and 5 are dismissed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that export incentives such as duty drawback and MEIS, are assessable as ‘profits or gains from business or profession’. Thus, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, the Visakhapatnam ITAT held: “Respectfully following the above precedents, we hold that the export incentives such as Duty Drawback and MEIS is an income assessable under the head ‘profits or gains from business or profession’ as per clause (iiib) and (iiid) to section 28 of the Act. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that deduction u/s 54F is not allowable, if the assessee has more than a residential house at the time of claiming the deduction. Finally, allowing the Revenue’s appeal, the Hyderabad ITAT held that “As the case may be, without giving any finding on the above said facts, in the interests of justice, the case is required to be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to examine afresh having regard to the SRO Certificate, GST and Municipal Tax Receipts and to record a categorical finding as to for what purposes the facts were approved by municipal authorities.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 holding that the interest paid on delayed Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) payment was compensatory in nature. According to Section 37, any expenditure that was planned or spent entirely and solely for the purposes of the company or profession (as opposed to capital expenditures or the assessee’s personal expenses) should be allowed in determining the income that must be paid under the “profits and gains of business or profession.”
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that addition could not be based on SMS or WhatsApp messages without corroborative evidence. The Division Bench of Rajesh Kumar, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal referring to the decision in ACIT vs. Machukonda Shyam holding that addition could not be sustained as it was based on the SMS or WhatsApp messages without any corroborative evidence.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that litigation expenses incurred by Assessee Company for recovery of money from the debtors could not be disallowed. Chetan M Kacha, Counsel for the revenue submitted that no TDS have been deducted on such payment of professional fees and therefore the same should be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench observed that “Payments have been made by the assessee for the filling of various suits for recovery of money from the debtors like Fancy Impacts, Marble Gems, Asugems Sugey Gems which are still pending, and the suits were filed in 2012. Thus, these legal expenses could not be disallowed as they have been incurred during carrying on the business.”
An appeal was filed by the assessee, Harcharan Dass Gupta, against the order dated 28.03.2022 relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. Mansi Jain, on behalf of the assessee submitted that the AO had erred in making addition on account of interest paid on late TDS under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Division Bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition observing that, “We are of the considered view that the interest paid by the assessee u/s 201(1A) r.w.s. 206C (7) of the Act cannot be held as penal in nature and, thus, incurred out of commercial expediency and, therefore, is allowable u/s 37 of the Act.”
The Jaipur bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while quashing the addition made by the assessing officer based on information by the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), held that Officers of DRI are not proper officers for the purpose of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. Considering the submissions and orders made by the CESTAT and CIT(A), the division bench of the tribunal observed that“CIT(A) respectfully followed the order of the CESTAT and deleted the addition made by the AO and we also concur with the findings of the CIT(A) which has merit”.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that addition under Section 68 and taxing under Section 115BBE cannot be invoked, when the assessee is not required to maintain the books of accounts. “As regards the invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, we fail to find any merit in the action of the AO since in the instant case we have held that provision of Section 68 cannot be invoked as the assessee was not required to maintain the books of account. Since Section 115BBE comes into operation only in case of income referred in Section 68/69/69A/69B/69C and 69D of the Act which is not applicable on the issues raised in the instant case, therefore, there is no justification for invoking the provisions of Section 115BE of the Act”, the Coram of Khul Bharat, the Judicial Member and Manish Borad, the Accountant Member further observed.
The Jaipur bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), recently by observing the decision of Supreme Court, held that courts should not go strictly by the rulebook to deny justice to deserving litigants as it would lead to miscarriage of justice. Further, the bench of Sandeep Gosain, (Judicial member) and Rathod Kalesh Jayantbhai, (Accountant member) observed that the assessee had filed the appeal manually but simultaneously not electronically.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed for fresh adjudication as the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)) failed to admit additional evidence as stipulated under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962. The Division Bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal observing that, it was necessary to look into the submissions of the assessee made before the CIT(A) in the light of the material / document (additional evidence) placed before the CIT(A) which he had not considered in his appellate order. The Bench directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and fresh assessment proceedings.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the additional holding that accumulated profits should be arrived after allowing depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961 and not as per companies Act. The Division Bench of Rajesh Kumar, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal observing that, “We observe that in case the depreciation as per Income Tax Act is taken into account then the accumulated profits of the assessee would be working out to be in negative meaning thereby that there are no accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. In the aforesaid decisions it has been held that the accumulated profits have to be arrived at after allowing depreciation as per the Act and not as per Companies Act.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that death of assessee shall not abate assessment proceedings as per Rule 26 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Assessee Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel is a Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family. He filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014. According to the bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) held that ”assessee is no longer interested in pursuing the appeal and in the absence of any corrective action taken, the appeal stands abated” therefore the appeal filed by the assessee was as abated and non-maintainable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, while deleting an addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, held that accrual of payment and actual act of making payment must both exist for TDS to be made. Thus, the ITAT finally held that “Before us, Revenue has not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. In such a situation, we relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tej Quebecor Printing Ltd. (supra) are of the view that AO was not justified in making addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, therefore, direct its deletion. Thus, the ground of assessee is allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on finding that the order passed by the A.O. did not satisfy the twin conditions of “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest, set aside the Pr. CIT’s order. The assessee had filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 10.03.2018, disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil and the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. And subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for complete scrutunity, which includes (i)Large investment in immovable property (ii) depreciation claimed (iii) deduction and deposit of TDS (iv) High Loans and Advances and income from House Property.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, quashed the disallowance of claim under Section 143(1)(a) for belated filing of ITR, on the ground of lack of enabling provision in the Income Tax Act. Thus, the ITAT finally held “For the above discussion, finding merit in the grievance raised by the Assessee, the same is accepted. The order under appeal is accordingly reversed. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 4,11,664 is cancelled. In the result, the appeal is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Delhi Bench), has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that no income addition can be made in respect of addition under the Black Money Act. “We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that once additions have been made under the Black Money Act the same addition cannot be made under the IT Act on the same set of facts, therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) does not call for any interference.” ruled ITAT.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that interest income from loan extended against mortgage of properties would not constitute Rental Income. Thus, dismissing the assessee’s claim, the ITAT held that “We find the learned CIT (A) while upholding the addition has also given a finding that since the assessee has already offered the rental income under the head income from house property as per remand report, the addition should be limited to the disallowance u/s 24(b) of the Act only which in our opinion is just and proper and needs no interference”.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, recently held that all cash deposits in the savings account could not be considered as income of assessee. The tribunal observed that the assessee was not required to file return of income was not taken into account and therefore, there was no application of mind while recording the reasons for reopening.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that addition for unexplained expenditure could not be made on mere extrapolation and presumption. The assessee, Assam Kerala Roadways Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the business of transportation of goods. AO observed from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee has claimed a sum as vehicle operating and maintenance expenses under the head other expenses. The Division Bench of Rajesh Kumar, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and observed that, all the vehicles as test checked by the AO were duly registered as goods carriers on the web portal of VAHAN, Ministry of Road Transport & highways and in couple of cases the data were not available due to non-digitization of data.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that no addition can be made on compensation received from the government on account of acquisition of land under Acquisition of Land Act, 1894. The tribunal, after analyzing the contention confirmed that, the assessee deposited the amount which was he received from the Government as compensation on account of acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act. Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal of the assessee and restored the issue back to the file of the AO for considering of the issue afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law.
upport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
