This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from May 6th to 13th, 2023.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that the proceeds from licence of Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Projects are taxable as business income and not rental income.
It was thus held that the AO had fallen in error in considering the proceeds of licence to be rental income, dismissing the appeal of the revenue as the grounds raised were groundless in fact and in law.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that revision of the assessment order passed without enquiry into CFS charges paid to continental warehousing corporation is valid and good in law under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Hence, relying upon the above observation, the two-member tribunal confirmed the revision order passed by the PCIT.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of mere change of opinion is not valid.
The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer has doubted the assessment only on the basis of observation that from the perusal of case records itself he has observed certain aspects which lead to the reopening. Hence, this was observed to be a clear case of change of opinion and the reassessment was held to be not valid. Therefore, the two-member bench of tribunal comprising Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and quashed the reassessment order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that no additions can be made de hors any incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi ITAT held: “Hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the additions in all the four appeals. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on finding that no notice was send to the Assessee, and that ex- parte decision was arrived at, in case of addition and conformation of cash deposits, restored the matter to the AO.
Thus, the ITAT finally held: “We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. It shall be open to the Assessing Officer to make such inquiry as he may consider it expedient and pass an assessment order afresh in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on finding that the basic condition as stipulated under Section 271 (1) (c) is not fulfilled, deleted the penalty imposed by the Revenue.
Thus, the ITAT finally held: “Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) we are of the view that in the present case, the basic condition for levy of penalty has not been fulfilled and that the penalty order suffers from non-exercising of jurisdiction power of AO. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the conditions stipulated under Section 271(1)(c) for the levy of penalty are not attracted in the present case. We therefore, direct its deletion. The ground of assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed furnishing, in the absence of enabling provision of Section 200A (1) (c), is unlawful.
Thus, the Pune ITAT finally held: “In the absence of any contrary facts brought to our notice by the Ld. DR, all these appeals shall also succeed mutatis mutandis. Resultantly, this bunch of four appeals stands allowed.”
In a significant case the Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate tribunal (ITAT) has recently upheld the quashing time -barred scrutiny assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal observed that “assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee ought to be passed on or before 12.09.2015 in view of the provisions of section 153(1) read with Explanation 1 and proviso to the said explanation. The assessment order, having been passed on 30.03.2016 is clearly beyond the time limit of 12.09.2015 and hence we have no hesitation to conclude that the assessment order is time barred and bad in law”.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that disallowance of donations made to the trust under section 35 AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without conducting enquiry is invalid.
The assessee has duly discharged the onus cast upon him and it was incumbent upon AO to refute the same. The Tribunal directed to delete the disallowance as made by AO and to grant the deduction under section 80GGA of the Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently while condoning the delay of 217 days prior to covid period, observed that old accountant filed the returns without consideration of income tax demand orders and tax position.
The single member bench of Suchitra Kamble, (Judicial Member) remanded back the issues contested by the assessee society to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that the remuneration paid to consultant doctors is not salary, hence Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) is not applicable.
Accordingly, the tribunal of Mahavir Singh, Vice President, and Manjunatha. G, Accountant Member deleted additions made towards short deduction of TDS under Section 201(1) and interest thereon under Section 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payment made to consultant doctors.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while quashing the assessment passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 observed that approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without verifying assessment records.
After perusal of the records the two-member bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed approval given under Section 153D has been granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind and thus it is invalid and bad in law and consequently vitiated the assessment order for want of valid approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that appeal could not be dismissed on ground of assessee filing against Vivad se viswas. Therefore, the bench set aside the order passed by the lower authority. The two-member bench of Durga Rao, (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, (Accountant Member) set aside the order of the CIT(A) allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that coercion shouldn’t be there to admit undisclosed income, and also that admissions should be backed by credible evidence. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, held that unsecured loan taken at higher rate for commercial expediency is admissible under section 57(iii).
Thus, the Ahmedabad ITAT finally held: “Considering the facts of the case and our observations made in the preceding paragraphs, we are hereby allowing the appeal of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while upholding the revision order under Section 263, held that failure of AO to examine purchase of land by the assessee, as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b), is prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest.
Thus, the Ahmedabad ITAT finally held: “In view of the above, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, on finding that the legal prerequisite for reopening beyond 4 years under section 147 was not fulfilled, set aside the reassessment orders.
Thus, the Ahmedabad ITAT finally held: “In view of the above, it is clear that prerequisite laid down in law for reopening of the case beyond four years is not found to be fulfilled in the present case. The reopening by the AO therefore, we hold, in both the cases is without jurisdiction; the assessment orders, therefore, passed as a consequence are invalid and directed to be set aside. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed in above terms.”
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that cash received from sister-in-law deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period is not a gift. Hence, the bench upheld the addition made by the assessing officer.
Therefore, the bench of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manjunatha. G, Accountant Member sustained additions made towards cash deposits made during the demonetization period.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), treated the source for cash deposits found in bank accounts as unexplained money on unsubstantiated evidence.
The Tribunal concluded by observing that “We are of the considered view that the claim of the assessee that source for cash deposits found in three bank accounts is out of amount received from debtors of partnership firm is unsubstantiated and thus, we reject argument of the assessee.”
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that no addition could be made under Section 69B of Income Tax Act on account of jewellery shown in wealth tax return.
Therefore, considering the wealth tax return and books of assessee, the bench deleted the addition made by the assessing officer.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench has held that brought forward losses can be adjusted against the income declared belatedly income tax return under section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Concluding the order, the ITAT held that “It is also important to note that the assessee has filed the return of income belatedly for the year under consideration but there is no prohibition to adjust the brought forward losses against the income declared belatedly in the return of income under the provision of section 139(3) of the Act. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the findings of the ld. CIT-A. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.”
In a setback to the State Bank of India (SBI), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench has held that since the fee paid for core banking solution (CBS) was not proved as revenue in nature, the Assessment Order was “erroneous” and therefore, revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked.
Upholding the revision order, the ITAT held that “In the absence of examination of the claim made by the assessee the finding of Ld. PCIT that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue qua the expenditure claimed as CBS Fees is upheld. Therefore, we hold that exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT is proper and valid. And therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench has held that the amount forfeited out of share capital would amount to “capital receipt” and therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not be applicable.
Relying on an identical order in the case of M/s. R.S. Triveni Foods P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, the ITAT deleted the impugned order and held that “the amount of Rs.1,50,35,625/- forfeited by the assessee out share capital issued by it shall not fall within the scope of sec.56(2)(ix) of the Act. Further, the said amount shall constitute a Capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the above said amount is not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of the above said amount made in the hands of the assessee.”
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that interest income from fixed deposits of co-operative society made during the course of business is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the two-member bench of Dr Manish Borad, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty should be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without issue of notice specifying charge.
The tribunal while considering the submission observed that when no specification of charge in the penalty notice leads to the same becoming void and penalty on that count is to be deleted. Therefore, the two-member bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra, (Judicial Member) observed that the penalty notice issued by the authority was defective. Due to that, the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that interest income from fixed deposits of co-operative society made during the course of business is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal, after verifying the contentions of the above observed that assessee is a society as per the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. The interest income from the Fixed Deposits, which was made by the assessee in the course of business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the two-member bench of Dr. Manish Borad, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench in a matter of addition to unaccounted cash based on deposits during demonetisation directed the assessee to establish the genuineness of money.
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to carry out the necessary verification of the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Further held, that the AO shall verify all the details/evidence filed by the assessee based on the above direction and consider the claim by the law.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that the limitation period under section 263(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 begins from the date of original assessment order not from reassessment order. Hence, the bench quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT.
The two-member bench of Chandra Mohan Garg, (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that there is no irregularity in the assessment order passed by the assessing officer.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench has held that bad debts are allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In light of the decisions, the Coram comprising Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member directed the AO to delete the addition made under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and allowed the appeal.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) would not be applicable to Uber India on payments made to the driver partners.
The Bench held that the assessee could not be treated as a “person responsible for paying‟ for the purpose of Section 194C read with Section 204 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of payment made to driver partners on behalf of the Uber BV for the transportation services. Accordingly, the coordinate bench held that the assessee could not be treated as an “assessee in default‟ under Section 201(1)/201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), confirmed the deletion of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation and noted that motor vehicles qualify as self-propelled vehicles.
The Tribunal of Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member observed that “we are of the considered view that motor vehicles qualify as self-propelled vehicles and accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals), who has allowed relief to the assessee with respect to this issue.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be valid for the assessment year not covered within the period of 6 years.
The Bench allowed the appeal holding that the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of assessee’s income for AY 2009-10 as the relevant assessment year AY 2009-10 was outside the scope of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed re-adjudication on finding the rejection of registration of a trust for non-compliance of notice and non-registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without adhering to principle of natural justice.
The two-member Bench of OM Prakash Kant, (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and directed re-adjudication holding that the assessee had to be given one more opportunity to present the details sought for by the CIT(E) as on the principles of natural justice.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that income earned and declared by the wife on sale of joint-owned property is not taxable at the hands of the husband.
The two-member bench of Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant Member) viewed that income cannot be taxed in the hands of two persons. Hence, the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently deleted an addition made on undisclosed income and observed that notional interest cannot be taxed as income.
The assessments for the said years had become final prior to the date of search and there was no incriminating material found during the course of search to support and substantiate the said addition. Further added that there was also no error in CIT(A) holding that it is settled law that notional interest cannot be taxed as income. The appeal of the assessee got allowed in result.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently quashed an ex-parte order due to the non-service of notice and granted the assessee the opportunity of hearing.
It was further observed that the notices were not served in the proper manner, and the assessing officer did not obtain the necessary approval before issuing them, indicating a lack of applied mind. The assessee should be given a proper opportunity to be heard and submit supporting documents. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that reassessment cannot be based on incorrect facts. The aforesaid observation was made by the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal when an appeal was preferred before it by the Assessee, as against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida (CIT(A) arising from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the AY 2009-10.
“We thus set aside the action of the CIT(A) and quash the re-assessment proceedings giving rise to the present appeal. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”, the coram of Chandra Mohan Garg, the Judicial Member, along with Pradip Kumar Khedia, the Accountant Member, held.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the Income Tax Scrutiny Assessment under section 143(3) due to the issuance of a manual assessment order without a Documentation Identification Number (DIN).
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has held that Section 69A addition under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be based on surmises conjectures and hypothesis.
Thus, the Delhi ITAT coram of Astha Chandra, the Judicial Member and N.K Billaiya, the Accountant Member finally held: “Considering the totality of facts from all possible angles, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.”
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that the global operation fee received from GE T&D India Ltd (GETDIL) is a fee from technical services (FTS) under the provisions of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Therefore, the bench granted relief to UK Grid Solution Limited.
The two-member bench of N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) held that “Tax authority below have fallen in error in taxing global operation fee of Rs.8,12,37,030 received from GETDIL as Fees from Technical Services under the provisions of the Act and the India-UK DTAA, without appreciating that provision of said services by the Appellant did not satisfy the ‘make available’ clause contained in Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA”.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated after the expiry of 4 years as there was no failure to provide material facts.
“In the present case, from the facts, it was evident that assessment was completed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act. Further, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2019, beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year on 2012-13. Therefore, it needs to be examined whether the conditions prescribed in 1st provision to section 147 of the Act are satisfied in the present case,” the Bench further observed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the addition under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards bogus purchase and disallowance of salary as the income escaped for assessment was not represented in the form of an asset.
“What was assessed in this year under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act was the addition towards alleged bogus purchases and disallowance of salary/professional fee under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. It was not shown that the income, if any, generated out of these two disallowances is represented in the form of asset”, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench further observed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act 1961, imposed on assessee for bonafide belief of treating gross commission as turnover.
“During assessment proceedings, the assessing officer required the books of account to be provided and audited. The audit report was furnished on May15, 2019, prior to the completion of assessment (Assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 18.12.2019).Therefore, the assessing officer had the benefit of an audit report in completing the assessment” the Tribunal noted.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee in the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act in both the assessment years and both appeals were allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the addition made against a practicing doctor for cash deposit during the demonetisation period.
“There has been only one cash deposit of Rs. 165,000/- on account of old currency notes (SBN) in a savings bank account. The assessee is a practicing doctor, ENT specialist, deriving income from medical practice. The assessee has also deposited cash in his Saving Bank account (non-SBN) which has been duly accepted by the AO during the same period,” the Bench further observed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that no disallowance could be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for computing book profit under Section 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member bench of V. Durga Rao, (Judicial Member) and Dr. Manish Borad, (Accountant Member) after considering the facts, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and held that the AO had erred in considering disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB.
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 when there is reasonable cause for not getting audited under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore, the two-member bench of Shri R.K. Panda, (Accountant Member) and K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed to consider valuation report for giving the benefit of cost of acquisition in construction of roof rights in property.
The two-member Bench of Kul Bharat, (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order directing fresh adjudication observing that, “it is an admitted that that the assessee had sold a floor which was constructed based on construction of the roof rights in property. In our considered view the authorities below ought to have given the benefit of cost of acquisition to’ the assessee. During the course of hearing the assessee has also filed a technical report by the approved valuer.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that mere non-compliance to furnish transportation details could not be said to be the non-compliance of Section 194C(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for making disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
The Bench further held that the assessee’s failure to provide the required information to the Revenue authorities cannot be used to infer that the assessee has not met with the first statutory requirement, which is to collect the payees’ PANs.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to Canara Bank by deleting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance and only excess could be claimed as deduction.
The Division Bench of George K., (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu, (Accountant Member) deleted the addition made under Section 36(1)(vii) Income Tax Act and allowed the ground for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 noticing similar decisions in assessee’s own case which had rendered in favour of the assessee.
The Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that no addition could be made under Section 69 Income Tax Act, 1961 on money kept for treatment of grandmother.
Hence, the two-member bench of Ramakanta Panda, (Accountant Member) and K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and confirmed that the amount seized from the assessee’s residential premise were kept for the treatment of assesee’s grandmother.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the assessment order holding that notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not issued by the assessing officer (AO) who completed assessment.
The Bench further held that, a valid order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act which was required to be passed for transferring a case from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer could not be brought on record, though claimed to have been mentioned in the referred documents.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently ruled that the production of foundation seeds qualifies as agricultural activity, making it eligible for tax exemption under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member tribunal Bench consisting of an Accountant Member Shri Rama Kanta panda, and Judicial Member Shri K. Narasimha Chary, observed that “Seed is a product of agricultural activity. When such agricultural activity is conducted and seeds are produced, merely because such seeds were sold commercially, the basic agricultural operations also cannot be dubbed as ‘commercial activities’, and not ‘agricultural activities’”. The appeal filed by revenue was dismissed.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the additions on unexplained cash deposits under Sections 69A and 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 upon receipt of proper explanation by assessee.
The two-member tribunal bench consisting of Account Member, Rama Kanta panda and Judicial Member, K. Narasimha Chary observed that there was no denial of the deposits and withdrawals. Further, such a fact was verified by the assessing officer also and admitted in the remand report. Both the appeals were dismissed and cross objections were allowed.
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) no disallowance shall be made on the part of director’s remuneration when the business is stopped due to temporary lull.
The two-member Bench of B. R. Baskaran, (Accountant Member) and S. Seethalakshmi, (Judicial Member), in view of the decision of the DelhiTribunal in the case of Ishwar Builders P Ltd vs. DCIT the Bench allowed this ground of appeal and held that there was no requirement of disallowing part of director’s remuneration and depreciation when the business was stopped due to temporary lull.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), deleted income tax addition and ruled that carbon credit receipt is capital receipt.
The Two- Member Bench of Manish Borad, Accountant Member and V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member observed that” Respectfully following the judicial precedents fail to find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) holding the Carbon Credit receipt as a capital receipt.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), quashed revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that the sales reversal entry is not unexplained expenditure.
“Though the policy adopted by the assessee is not at par with the settled accounting policies since the cash is entered in the books without actually receiving the cash, however, going through the flow of the transactions it is in the nature of sales reversal” the Bench concluded.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education (MSBTE) would be state under the purview of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and is exempted from income tax.
The Two-member Bench of Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue holding that, “The objectives of the assessee board were evident to categories it to be a ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the assessee would fall within the term ‘state’ as the assessee was controlled by either the Central or State Government completely and they would also become instrumentality of the Government.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing company would be illegal and void ab initio.
The two-member Bench of Saktijit Dey, (Judicial Member) and B. R. R. Kumar, (Accountant Member), quashed the assessment order and allowed the appeal, examining the judgement of Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP, Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and in PCIT Vs. ITA. The Bench further held that since the Assessing Officer had knowledge of the dissolution of the company as established from the Assessment Order itself, the order would be void ab initio.
The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked on mere non reference of cash transactions.
The two member Bench of Ravish Sood, (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that, even if the aforementioned cash transactions were to be brought within the meaning of cash loans that were raised/repaid in contravention of the prescribed modes contemplated in Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, a mere non reference of the same by the A.O in the body of the assessment order would not render the assessment order as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no income tax penalty could be imposed on an alleged bogus purchase if the addition was made on an estimated basis.
The revenue rather made the addition on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department without conducting any independent enquiry as to the alleged bogus purchases, the Bench further observed.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that the provision of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall apply to underlying investments received by amalgamated entities on account of merger.
The two-member bench of RamaKanta Panda, Accountant Member and Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member allowed the appeal of the revenue and restored the order of AO invoking the provision of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently ruled that the incriminating statements by third parties cannot be used for addition in Income Tax assessment.
No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee based on the statement recorded by the Investigating Wing by a third party. The statement of a third party already recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act cannot be considered as an incriminating document for the purpose of making the addition under Section 153A of the Income tax Act. Appeal of the assessee got allowed.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the files to the Assessing Officer to verify the correction statement of Tax Deduction at Source linking the unconsumed challan with the instances of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS), giving an opportunity to the assessee.
Further stated that because of the pendency of this appeal, the Assessing Officer is not entertaining the application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal has set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and allowed the appeals of the assessee statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
