This Round-Up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during August 19 to August 25, 2023.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted exemption to ICICI Bank as books of accounts prepared under Section 115JB read with Section 211(2) of the Companies Act are not applicable to it.
The two-member Bench of Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee observing that corresponding grounds were also raised in the cross appeal filed by the revenue in which the court held that, “As far as disallowance of interest expenditure for computing net exempt income is concerned, we are of the view that if the investment made in exempt income yielding assets are made out of interest free funds available with the assessee, there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenditure. As per facts and material on record, surplus interest free funds available with the assessee far exceeds the investment made in tax free interest income yielding assets, therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the exception under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing of the audit report.
The Two-member bench comprising of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial member) held that there is no hesitation in holding that the CIT(A) has rightly held the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of requisite form along with return of income, to be not as per law, noting the fact that the assessee did file the requisite form during regular assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings before him. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench held that assessee was failed to discharge the onus to prove genuineness of cash credited by cheques in various bank accounts.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) restored the matter to the file of AO for verifying the details of the persons regarding credits and the payments made by the assessee
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for deciding afresh after examination of the relevant supporting details filed by the assesse.
The two member bench consisting of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) held that the AO has also not provided sufficient time to the assessee therefore the required details could not be verified at the time of assessment.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Interest free advances given by the assessee were made in the course of business of the assessee.
The two member bench consisting of Suchitra R Kamble (Judicial member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant member) upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the order passed by the assessing officer in the absence of proper inquiry shall be liable to revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant member) held that the Assessing Officer is required to make necessary verification and to determine and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing law to determine the correct income of the assessee liable to tax after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the amount from bank account for property was deposited but redeposited in the same bank as purchase deal could not be fructified.
The two-member Bench of Vikas Awasthy,(Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) observed that the source of amount to the bank account of the grandfather of the assessee Pritam Singh was also very much clear and unambiguous. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition referring to the decision of Delhi High Court in Jaya Agarwal which held that where the assessee withdrew an amount from bank account for purchase of a property but re-deposited a part of said sum in same bank account as purchase deal could not be fructified, additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act of amount re-deposited was unjustified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench held that payment made to Yes bank for corporate guarantee of joint venture company is business expenditure .Therefore the bench allowed the deduction claimed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Shamim Yahya,(Accountant Member ) and Anubhav Sharma,(Judicial Member) held that payment made to Yes bank for corporate guarantee of joint venture company is business expenditure so eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the revenue could not adjust the withheld tax not deposited by the employer in a central Government account against the refund due and payable to the employee under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The two-memeber Bench of C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) and M Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee referring Section 205 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instruction dated 01.06.2015 holding that the revenue could not adjust withheld tax which had not been deposited by the deductor/ employer in the Central Govt account, against refund due and payable to the assessee-employee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no additions shall be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on unsecured loans if the assessee furnishes proper evidence.
The Two-member bench comprising of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial member) held that the unsecured loan availed was repaid in the next financial year to the creditor namely Smt. Hansaben M. Patel through cheque payments and the bank statement also filed before the Lower Authorities. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act do not attract in the above transaction and thereby the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld by deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act with respect to the unsecured loans availed from Smt. Hansaben M. Patel. Thus, the appeal made by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the disallowances of contingent liability shall not be entertained as it does not form part of the profit &loss account.
The Two-member bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The contingent liability in question does not form part of the P/L account and has not been taken into account while determining the income chargeable to tax, it will be incumbent upon Assessing Officer to reverse the disallowance carried out in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Assessment Order allowing deduction of commission payments has been passed without verification, which should have been made, and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was well within the jurisdiction to have invoked the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Bench Comprising of George George K, Vice President and Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member observed that f the sales incentive is a payment made on principal-to-principal basis, the same need not be subjected to TDS under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, and stated that to determine whether the sales incentive which is paid by the assessee to its dealers is in the nature of ‘discount’ or ‘commission’, necessarily the agreement between the assessee and its dealers has to be examined. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has allowed the impugned expenditure without examining / verifying the agreement entered into between the assessee (the payer) and its dealers (the payees), thus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was well within the jurisdiction to have invoked the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus the Bench upheld the order of the PCIT and appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), held that the claim for the compensation in the case of the co-owner was admitted by the revenue and therefore the revenue has taken contrary stand by disallowing the addition in the hand of the assessee who is also a co-owner.
The Bench comprising of Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member held the claim of the assessee cannot be denied for the fact that the claim in the case of co-owner was admitted by the revenue. Accordingly the Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned delay of 85 days and held that payment of income tax in Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, considered as complete adjustment of return of income for year under appeal i.e AY 2017-18.
The Bench comprising of R.S. Syal, Vice President and S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member considered the application for delay of 85 days and observed that a sum of Rs.69,74,612/- has been adjusted in respect of the assessment year under consideration against the refund for the A.Y. 2022-2023, which shows that the amount of tax payable by the assessee with reference to the returned income for the year in appeal, was duly paid. The Tribunal referred the case of CIT Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh, where it was held, “where tax is paid subsequently, the appeal which was earlier dismissed by the first appellate authority for violation of Section 249(4), gets revived “. Hence, the amount of tax payable by the assessee with reference to the returned income for the year under consideration stands fully adjusted against the refund for the A.Y. 2022-23. Thus set aside the order of CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of assessee.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT (E)] failed to comply with the direction of High Court (HC) in rejecting application for registration under Section 10(23C) of Income Tax Act,1961 and thus restored the mater to CIT(E) and directed for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal Bench comprising of Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member observed that the CIT (E) without examining all the aspects, as directed by the High Court, has reiterated its findings and rejected the application. Since the directions of the High Court had not been complied with by the CIT(E), the appellate tribunal bench deemed it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication as per the directions of the High Court, thus allowing the appeal of the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that National Research & Technologies Consortium (NRTC) was not required to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as NRTC was not a “specified person” as defined under Section 194C of the Act.
The Two member bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Aakash Deep Jain (Vice President) allowed the appeals filed by NRTC and held that it was not required to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also held that the Taxing Authorities had erred in charging interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act, as there was no revenue loss to the exchequer and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department (ITD) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) quashing reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee as it was not in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two member bench comprising Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal of the revenue and upheld the order of the CIT(A) and found that the approving authority had not recorded proper satisfaction and had granted approval without application of mind in a mechanical manner. This was not in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal mandates that the approving authority must confirm the case’s suitability for reopening, alleging income concealment or tax evasion, and issue the reassessment order within the prescribed time frame under Section 148 of the Act
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the registration under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961 could not be denied without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The two- Member Bench of B R Baskaran, (Accountant Member) and N. K. Choudhry, (Judicial Member) observed that the Commissioner before deciding the application filed by the Appellant, though given appropriate opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case, however failed to decide the same in the absence of supported material and/ or non-production and non- explaining of documents and activities carried out by the appellant. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee remanding the instant case to the file of the Commissioner for denovo adjudication, affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the addition could not be made and sustained by invoking the deeming provision of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The two-member Bench of C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) noted that despite the several opportunities the assessee filed only a copy of the account in the assessee’s books which showed only the receipt of amount on 01.03.2007 and in the absence of other details and confirmation of the said amount of Rs. 15 lakhs remained unexplained; therefore, it was rightly added to the income of the assessment. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that no addition could be made and sustained in the hands of the assessee by invoking the deeming provision of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and by alleging and considering the same as unexplained in the hands of the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act holding that the restrictions on AO in accepting new claims otherwise than through the return of income or revised return of income would not be applicable to higher appellate authorities.
The two-member Bench of G.S. Pannu, (President) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice-President) observed that the only reason, based on which, the Assessing Officer had rejected assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act was that such claim could not be entertained as it was not made either in the original return of income or through revised return of income. The Bench further referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. which held that the restriction imposed on the Assessing Officer in accepting new claims made by the assessee otherwise than through the return of income or revised return of income was not applicable to higher appellate authorities. And the DRP, being in the status of a higher appellate authority, was empowered to entertain the assessee’s claim. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer proceeded to initiate action under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of shortfall in TDS (Tax deducted at source) on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee for FY(Financial Year) 2012-13 and restored the case to the AO and directed to freshly adjudicate the issue in accordance of law.
The Bench comprising of G.S. Pannu, President and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member held that It is not in dispute that the AO proceeded to initiate action under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of shortfall in TDS on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee for FY 2012-13. If that be so, we are of the view that action of the AO to resort to the provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act cannot be faulted. It is further observed by the Tribunal that no finding on merits of the case has been recorded by the CIT (A). Thus restored the case to the file of the AO with direction to decide the issue under consideration afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. Hence the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that failure of Assessing Officer (AO) in non-consideration of sale of scrap in the total revenue is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and thus the Tribunal allowed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to exercise revisionary power under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of R.S. Syal, Vice President and S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member observed that the AO did not enquire into this aspect of the matter and simply passed a five-lined assessment order observing that the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on the issue of “Non furnishing of quantitative details”. The Tribunal considered this action of the AO rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, thus PCIT was right in exercising revisionary power under Section 263 of Income Tax Act.
The Indore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed a penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the absence of assessment proceedings as the assessee in this case had not filed a return of income for the assessment year under consideration and the AO had initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D, but the ITAT held that the penalty was not valid because there were no assessment proceedings.
The Two-member bench comprising B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member) and Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial Member) quashed the penalty order and held that the penalty was not valid because it was imposed without the completion of assessment proceedings and the recording of satisfaction by the AO. The Tribunal also held that the penalty was imposed without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and that it was disproportionate to the assessee’s failure to file a return of income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has quashed the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee and the Gross Profit (GP) Ratio application on Gross Receipts in the absence of suppression or discrepancy in the accounts, but upheld the addition of Unexplained Expenditure under Section 69C of Income Tax Act, 1961 as negotiations were not proved by the assessee.
The Bench upheld the addition of Rs.54,514/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing insufficient evidence to substantiate the appellant’s claims of negotiations leading to reduced payments. In result, the two-member bench comprising Shri Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Shri M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has levied the cost of Rs 5000 to be paid towards Prime Minister’s relief fund for callous attitude of ignoring notices of Commissioner of Income Tax Act (CIT(A) (NFAC) National Faceless Assessment Centre
The two-member Bench R.K. Panda, (Vice-President) and K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT (A) NFAC had sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer in absence of any submission or documentary evidence filed by the assessee despite 3 opportunities granted. It was the submission of the Counsel for the assessee that had given an opportunity, the assessee was in a position to substantiate his case by explaining the source with documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the CIT (A) NFAC. The CIT (A) NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decided the issue as per fact and law. The assessee was also hereby directed to appear before the CIT (A) NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the learned CIT (A) NFAC was at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed an assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an assessee due to lack of valid grounds and corroborative evidence and section 153C allows the Income Tax Department to assess an assessee other than the person searched, if incriminating material is found during the course of a search of that person.
The Two member bench comprising Chandra Mohan Garug (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the incriminating material found during the search belonged to the assessee. The assessee denied wrongdoing and provided an explanation for its possession. The Assessing Officer also failed to provide evidence to support the assessment, stating that the incriminating material was circumstantial and did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assessee had evaded taxes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench has directed to file separate rectification application for several intimation pertaining to different financial years for charging late fee on account of belatedly filed Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) return.
It was observed by the tribunal that Jurisdictional A.O. is having the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Assessee under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Further, assessee had filed a single rectification application before the A.O. as against several intimations. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Shamim Yahya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) directed to file separate rectification applications against each intimation.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed an addition made by the tax authorities to the tax liability of Standard Tele Towers P. Ltd. The ITAT held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee had not claimed any expenditure on account of job charges in the year under consideration.
The Two member bench comprising N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) has dismissed the tax authorities’ addition stating it was unsustainable as the assessee had not claimed any job charges expenditure in the year under consideration. The ITAT deemed this an error on the part of the tax authorities and urged the assessee to cross-examine the individuals involved.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench held that no penalty should be levied under Section 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of delay in filing the audit report due to proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The tribunal, after hearing the both sides observed that delay was caused due to reasonable cause as it is stated that evidence from the holding company could not be collected due to proceedings under IBC. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the single member bench of Kul Bharat, (Judicial Member) directed to delete the penalty imposed by the assessing officer.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the tax incidence for joint development agreements differs from the tax incidence for subsequent flat sales and observed that the Assessing Officer had made a fundamental mistake in computing capital gains for assessment year 2013-14 based on the date of sale of flats, even though the date of joint development agreement and supplementary agreement falls under assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13.
The Two member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha. G (Accountant Member) upheld the assessee’s appeal and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recalculating capital gains for the joint development agreement and subsequent flat sale. The ITAT ruled that the tax incidence for the joint development agreement differed from the subsequent flat sale.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)) denovo adjudication as the non-reply to the notice was due to some miscommunication between assessee and the tax consultant.
A Single Bench of Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee had appeared before the CIT(A) on 17/02/2023 and sought adjournment. The case was adjourned to 06/03/2023. On the said date, there was no response from the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) decided the appeal in an ex-parte proceeding. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee restoring the matter to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, pointing out that the reply to be furnished on 06/03/2023 was ready but could not be upload on portal due to some communication gap between the assessee and the Tax Consultant.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad bench while quashing the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax assessment order held that the same was not erroneous but found that it was the mistake of the Tax Auditor using incorrect words in the Tax Audit Report towards purchase of granules .
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) observed that PCIT was misguided by the incorrect words used by the Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit Report mentioning expenses incurred by the assessee with its related party Anand Synthetic in the nature of granules work instead of granules purchased.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore bench directs re-adjudication due to failure to comply with notice issued by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to E-mail of assessee by reason of lack of knowledge in operation of online computer Service .
It was observed by the tribunal that assessee is a retired employee and is not well versed in operation of computers and failed to open emails to which notices were sent by the FAA. By this reason assessee could not respond to the notice issued by the FAA. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member), George George K (Vice President) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition based on adhoc disallowance out of staff welfare expenses holding that the AO should not resort to adhoc disallowance.
The two-member Bench of Kul Bharat, (Judicial Member) and M.Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(A) had partly confirmed the action of AO, treating the expenditure for non-business purpose and it was clear that he did not advert to other expenses. He merely affirmed the action of AO without pointing out as to how the remaining expenses are not for business purposes. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee deleting the addition and held that, “It is well settled that the AO should not resort to adhoc disallowance. If the expenditure is not incurred for business purposes, there has to be a specific finding in this regard unless expenditure for personal use and business purpose are mixed and cannot be segregated.”
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] has not adjudicated the issues on merits thus restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide all the issues afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Bench comprising of V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that the assessee has raised various grounds including legal issue of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and the CIT (A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (A) order and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT (A) to decide all the issues afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details with material evidences and convincing explanations before the CIT (A) for consideration. Thus the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee was not aware of the new faceless system and was dependent upon the authorised representative who could not follow up the matter.
The two member bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial member) restored the matter back to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and assessee was also directed to comply with the notices and substantiate its case. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no steps has been taken by the Assessing Officer (AO) to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny and hence has overstepped his jurisdiction, therefore directed the AO to delete the disallowance made under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Bench comprising of Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member observed that CASS is a system driven identification of returns for limited scrutiny. The picking up of a return under CASS for scrutiny must be restricted only to the selected reason. The Tribunal further observed that in the above notice, the details in respect of sale deed / purchase deed, the exemption claimed by the assessee in the return of income were also called for along with the details of large cash deposits. However it was noted that no steps has been taken to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee has not provided any details as to the source of such cash deposited for the relevant financial year except for stating that these are business receipts, thus The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for necessary verification.
The Bench comprising of Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Beena Pillai, Judicial Member observed that cash was deposited to the account of the assessee for which no explanation was offered by assessee regarding the source before the authorities.
The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for necessary verification in accordance with law, and directed the assessee to file all relevant details in respect of the source of actual cash deposited into the bank accounts in order to exonerate himself from the rigour of Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Hence the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that although prima facie, the issue goes in favour of the assessee in view of the various judgements rendered by the Supreme Court as well as High Court, those aspects were never examined by the authorities below as the assessee did not file any appeal against the order dated 24.06.2020 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench consisting of Manish Borad (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that they were inclined to sustain the order passed by the authorities below. However, the assessee may prefer an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the AO along with an appropriate petition for condonation of delay and in by specifying the reason for such delay that event CIT(A) may sympathetically consider such application filed by the assessee and decide such issues on the merits of the case. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai bench held that the Income Tax Department had no power to scrutinize Sales Tax Returns accepted by the commercial tax department . Therefore the bench deleted the addition made by the assessing officer on account of valuation of stock.
After analysing the material facts the two member bench of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, (Accountant Member) and Mahavir Singh,( Vice-President) observed that, unless the competent authority under the Sales Tax Act differs with the closing stock of the assessee, the return accepted by the Commercial Tax Department is binding on the income-tax authorities. Therefore the Assessing Officer has no power to scrutinize the return submitted by the assessee to the commercial tax department which has been accepted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad bench held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be made ,if assessee not earned any exempt income during financial year. Therefore, the bench quashed the revision order passed by the Principle commissioner of Income Tax.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy, (Judicial Member) quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the tax authorities were justified in adding income to the assessee’s return due to inadequate evidence for cash payments and partnership formation and found that the assessee had failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his claims and that the tax authorities had properly followed the law in making the addition.
The two-member bench comprising Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member)dismissed the assessee’s allegations of alleged cash payments as undisclosed income due to lack of expert opinion support and also rejected the assessee’s claim of cash payments in a civil suit. The matter was settled out of court, and the ITAT assessed the reasonableness of adding alleged undisclosed cash payments to the firm’s income and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer’s decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench held that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be allowed on absence of carrying out business activities.
After considering the facts, the two-member bench of Shri M. Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate (ITAT) Tribunal held that no notice to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee as per the PAN data base/ Income Tax Web Portal was issued is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of the Income Tax Act and the assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim.
The two member bench consisting of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) and V.Durga Rao (Judicial member) set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by issuing notice to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee enabling the assessee to substantiate his claim with supporting evidences. The assessee is also directed to furnish convincing explanation with supporting evidences before the CIT(A) for consideration. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the rights to build and operate toll road are considered as tangible assets and the depreciation shall be allowed.
In reference to the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT Hyderabad M/s. Progressive Construction Limited, Hyderabad, ITA no. 214/Hyd./2014 the Two-member bench comprising of N.K. Billaiya (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) held that it can be appreciated from the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that the fact that rights under BOT projects have been considered to be intangible assets. Therefore, there is no error in the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Thus, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the business profit earned by the US talent agency for arranging Maroon 5 performance in India cannot be assessable in India for the want of a Permanent Establishment (PE).
The Two-member bench comprising of G.S. Pannu (President) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) held that the impugned receipts of the assessee from the Customer constitute business profits and hence are not chargeable to tax in India in the absence of the PE of the assessee in India. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing officer without accessing the return filed by the assessee shall be treated as void ab initio.
The Two-member bench comprising of C.M. Garg (Judicial member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant member) held that it can be unequivocally assumed that the Assessing Officer has not even examined the return filed by the assessee, hence the reasons recorded were on a wrong factual basis before issuing of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the notice issued is treated as void ab initio leading to the assessment completed based on such notice as legally invalid. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that concealed income under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if it is offered under the Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS) and ruled in favor of an assessee who claimed long-term capital gains on the sale of shares of a penny stock company, M/s Sun Asian.
The Two member bench comprising ABY T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) ruled that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed in this case, as the assessee had already disclosed the LTCG on the sale of Sun Asian shares in her income return. The ITAT also ruled that the IDS is a voluntary disclosure scheme that allows taxpayers to disclose undisclosed income without penalty, and concealed income under the IDS will not be penalized. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench held that expenses incurred for the infrastructure development of leased property are revenue expenditure. Therefore the bench upheld the addition deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
After reviewing the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) upheld the order of CIT(A) and observed that expenses incurred for the infrastructure development of leased property are revenue expenditure.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not validly empowered to invoke revisionary provision of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member and M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member observed that during limited scrutiny proceedings on the sole issue of source of cash deposit to the bank account of assessee, the Assessing Officer issued to notices along with questionnaire which were duly replied by the assessee along with relevant documentary evidences.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Assessing Officer (AO) is duty bound to specify the defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee before rejection of books of accounts by applying provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus directed to delete the addition of Rs. 23,44,406/- being 1% of turnover and other operating income of Rs. 45,44,563/-.
The Bench comprising of Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member observed that Assessee Company is a listed entity on the stock exchange and it is established fact that the entity was involved in the rigging/manipulation of share price.
It is further observed that Legal position with reference to rejection of books of accounts is altogether different whereas the case made by AO and further confirmed by the CIT (A) leads the matter towards specific disallowance /addition. Thus the Bench direct to delete the addition of Rs. 23,44,406/- being 1% of turnover and other operating income of Rs. 45,44,563/- and returned income of Rs. 35,48,140/- declared by assessee is directed to be final figure. Hence the ground of the appeal by the assessee is allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the credit could not be held to be unexplained cash credit and the impugned additions are not sustainable in law.
The two member bench consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice president) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) held that the assessee has duly identified the debtors from whom the cash was received and the same could not be disputed by lower authorities. The PAN of respective debtors as well as quantum of cash realized from each of them has duly been detailed by the assessee before AO during assessment proceedings. No defect has been pointed out in the books of accounts. In such a case, the credit could not be held to be unexplained cash credit and the impugned additions are not sustainable in law. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] for consideration and to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after considering the explanations of the assessee and directed the assessee to furnish complete details with material evidences and convincing explanations before the CIT (A).
The Bench comprising of V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that to meet the ends of natural justices, the assessee shall be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after considering the explanations of the assessee. The Tribunal further directed the assessee to furnish complete details with material evidences and convincing explanations before the CIT (A) for consideration. Thus the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that examination of Memorandum of Association would clarify the services in lieu of consideration and so the amount was in the nature of fee and not donations. Thus restored the matter to the files of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT (E)] for examination.
The Bench comprising of N.K.Billaiya, Accountant Member and Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member observed that CIT (E) gave the conclusive findings by observing that assessee has failed to file details / information required by the notices to verify the genuineness of the activities and the compliances of any other law being FCRA 2010 the conditions for grant of registration in the case is not satisfied.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is required to establish (a) identity (b) Genuineness of the transaction (c) Capacity of the lender /depositor. The initial burden is on the assessee. Hence it was incorrect on the part of the CIT(A) to say that the assessee has never produced the investors because the assessee was never asked to produce the investors.
The two member bench consisting of Anubham Sharma (Judicial member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant member) held that it is incorrect on the part of the CIT(A) to say that the assessee has never produced the investors because the assessee was never asked to produce the investors. Considering the facts in totality the bench was of the considered view that the assessee has successfully discharged the onus cast upon it by the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act and the AO has grossly failed in discharging the burden which shifted upon him. Thus the addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that surrendered income will be treated as income from the medical profession unless there is clear evidence to the contrary and upheld the order of the assessing officer (AO) who had accepted the explanation of the assessee, a doctor, that the surrendered income was from his medical profession, finding no evidence to suggest the income was from an unexplained source.
The Two member bench comprising (Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT. The ITAT held that the PCIT had not given any cogent reasons for interfering with the order of the AO. The ITAT also held that there was no evidence to suggest that the surrendered income was from an unexplained source.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the absence of cross-verification under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be taken as the sole basis to disregard the nature and expediency of such expenses and also held that the assessee had reasonably established the nexus between the commission expenses and the purpose of the business.
The Two-member bench comprising Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) ruled that the assessee had provided the AO with ITRs and confirmations for commission receipt, establishing a reasonable connection between commission expenses and business purpose. It also ruled that the absence of cross-verification under Section 133(6) of the Act should not be used as a sole basis to disregard the nature and expediency of such expenses.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Held that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] defaulted in recharacterizing the rental income as business income and arbitrarily disallowing income tax deduction without any justifiable reasons. Thus restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for redetermination of taxable income under the appropriate head.
The Bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member and Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member observed that the claim of the assessee that income offered in the past in the similar circumstances has been apportioned under the head ‘income from house property’ and ‘business income’ and the taxable income has been computed after claim of deductions statutorily available and expenses incurred for the purpose of business in accordance with law.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that GE Energy Parts did not have any permanent establishment in India as no expatriate employee was present in India during the impugned assessment years.
The two-member Bench of G.S Pannu, (President) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that merely following the decision taken by the appellate authorities and High Court in past assessment years, the departmental authorities had concluded the existence of PE without looking into or examining the facts and evidences brought on record, which were very much relevant for deciding the case existence of PE in the impugned assessment years.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no additions shall be imposed by the assessing officer when the income has been duly explained by the assessee.
The Single-member bench comprised of Kuldip Singh (Judicial member) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] had decided the issue in a hurried manner without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to treat the amount of Rs.1,85,000/- as the explained income of the assessee and delete the addition. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
