This Round-Up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during August 25 to September 1.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that additions under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated by the assessing officer without furnishing necessary evidences.
The Two-member bench comprising of Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) and Beena Pillai (Judicial member) held that the assessee has not proved the existence of business exigency in making the payment by way of cash otherwise by crossed cheque or DD or electronic clearance system through bank and Assessing Officer also not carried necessary enquiry on this count by examining all the sale deeds entered by the assessee with the parties. So, in the interest of justice, the entire issue in dispute was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. Accordingly, the issue in these appeals with regard to the addition made under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that mere search statements recorded from third parties 5 years ago would not be relevant for framing the current assessment year.
The two-member Bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) and M. Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal observing that, “When all these facts are staring on us, there is absolutely no scope of disbelieving the purchases made by the assessee from the five suppliers merely based on search statements recorded from certain third parties at Surat during the course of search conducted in AY 2008-09 which are absolutely not relevant for framing the assessment in the AY 2013-14 in the hands of the assessee.” It was further observed that, in any case, nonproduction of a concerned supplier for examination by the assessee would not make the transaction ingenuine.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the deduction claimed under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be rejected merely on the ground of non-mentioning of the claim in the Income Tax Return (ITR).
The Two-member bench comprising of Manish Borad (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that the appellate authority has coterminous power to accept the deduction that was not claimed in the Income Tax Return. So, the entire claim under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act is eligible claim of deduction. The assessee had submitted all relevant documents which are also considered by the appellate authority. Therefore, the claim of the assessee related to deduction under Sections 24(b), 80C & 80D of the Income Tax Act are allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was set aside. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee cannot claim a deduction for the cash purchase of land when the amount exceeds the permissible limit of Rs. 10000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial member) held that considering the provisions of law particularly Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act and the explanation under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, 20% of the entire amount of Rs.8,61,96,310/- i.e. Rs.1,72,39,262/- was disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the additional holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not interpolate the extra payment for every month to the entire 12 months for additional work done by guest teachers.
The two-member Bench of G.S. Pannu, (President) and Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that if the payment had been made through cheque and the details of expenses were duly debited in the books of account, then we fail to understand as to how it was outside the books. The Assessing Officer had treated the difference between the salaries for the month of March for additional work done by the staff for the entire year which he had interpolated for the entire 12 months on presumption basis.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that as per the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) circular, 500 gms for the assessee, 100 gms for her husband and 250 gms for her two unmarried daughters is the allowable limit for making addition. Thus the Tribunal deleted the addition made as the quantity of gold jewellery found is less to the extent covered by CBDT circular for family member.
he Bench comprising of G. S. Pannu, President and Amit Shukla, Judicial Member observed that according to the circular No. 1916 dated 1994, allowable limit for gold jewellery to the extend of 500 gms for the assessee, 100 gms for her husband and 250 gms for her two unmarried daughters. According to the observation then the value of said jewellery works out to Rs.11,31,900/. Thus, if benefit of this circular is being given, then no addition can be made. Thus the Tribunal held that the quantity of gold jewellery found and to the extent it is covered by CBDT circular for family member same should not be treated as unexplained in view of the customary practice in India. Hence appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the interest expenditure which had not been claimed in the profit and loss account could not be treated as revenue expense for disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The two-member Bench of G.S. Pannu (President) and Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) dismissed appeal filed by the revenue holding that the assessee had not claimed any interest expenditure in the profit and loss account and once no expenditure had been claimed in the profit and loss account the same could not have been disallowed under section 14A of Income Tax Act. The Bench further observed that the Assessing Officer had not given any finding or recorded any satisfaction as to why suo moto disallowance made by the assessee for earning of exempt income was not correct having regard to the nature of expenses debited or incurred. The CIT (A) had simply restricted the disallowance to the exempt income without any even commenting on the suo moto disallowance of the assessee.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of addition holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards the share premium under Section 56(2)(viib) of Income Tax Act had already offered to tax by the assessee before the settlement commission.
The two-member Bench of V. Durga Rao, (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha. G, (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards security premium in the hands of the assessee was already subjected to tax in the hands of RPP Infra Projects Ltd, which was evident from the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission. Therefore, further addition towards very same income could not be made in the hands of the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act 1961 holding that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) would not be applicable to professional and consultancy services which were neither availed nor rendered and even not utilised in India.
The two-member Bench of Waseem Ahmed, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee following the decision rendered by ITAT for assessment year 2006-07 in assessee’s own case, which held since the services in question were neither “availed” nor “rendered” and even not “utilised” in India, therefore no tax was required to be deducted at source.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that extending corporate guarantee to Associated Enterprise would constitute an international transaction.
The two-member Bench of Waseem Ahmed, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) observed that the ITAT in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year had held that providing of corporate/financial guarantee would not tantamount to an international transaction, and hence there was no requirement for benchmarking the same. The Bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that extending of corporate guarantee to AE would constitute an “international transaction” and the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt 0.5% as an arm’s length consideration for the corporate guarantee issued by the assessee in favour of its AE.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) held that Merely because the claim made by the assessee was not accepted would not lead to automatic levy of penalty. It is settled law that levy of penalty is not automatic.
The two member bench consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice president) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) held that to fall under Section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act, essentially there has to be misrepresentation of suppression of facts. The same, in the tribunal’s opinion, was not the case here and it was not a fit case for imposition of penalty. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore bench upheld the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the intimation made by section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After analysing the material facts the two member bench of Laxmi Prasad Sahul, (Accountant Member) and George George K, (Vice-President) upheld the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the intimation made by section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the consultant’s failure to comply with the notice of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Exemptions won’t result in non-registration of the trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence condones delay of 671 days.
The Two-member bench comprising of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) held that in the interest of justice, the matter is being restored to the file of CIT-Exemptions for de novo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a penalty cannot be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for a mistake made by the assessee’s accountant and ruled that the assessee was not liable for the penalty because he had provided all the relevant information to his accountant and that the accountant had made a mistake in calculating the income.
A Single-member bench Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) has allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) imposing a penalty of Rs. 48,435/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and held that the penalty cannot be imposed as the mistake was on the part of the accountant and not the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Trinbunal (ITAT) held that the credit of advance tax and TDS credit would be allowable to the assessee and those entities have not claimed the credit thereof.
Considering the plea of the Authorised Representative for the assessee, the two member bench consisting of V. Durga Rao (Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) directed the AO to verify assessee’s claim as per the submissions made by AR and allow the credit thereof as per law. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that clause (i) of section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017.
The two member bench consisting of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial member) and M.Balaganesh (Accountant member) held that they have no hesitation in holding that the transfer pricing adjustment made in the sum of Rs.91,04,673/- and the further addition of Rs.27,31,402/-, which is in consequence of the same, could not be made, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Thus the addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Sale transaction evidenced by registered agreement prevents implementation of Section 269SS from curbing black money
The two member bench consisting of V. Durga Rao (Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) held that the provisions of Sec.269SS are mainly to curb generation of black money by way of dealings in cash in immovable property transactions which is absence in the present case, we would hold that it is not a fit case for levy of impugned penalty. Therefore the addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition holding that the sale of stock of agricultural land could be treated as capital gain and not business receipt.
The two- Member Bench of Narendra Kumar Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue holding that the AO had not doubted the fact that based upon the parameters about situation of the land beyond 8 kms. of the municipal limits of the Municipality Tizara and the population of the villages in which land was situated was less than ten thousand as per last census the, land sold by assessee was agricultural land and the sale proceeds received from the said sale of land was income derived from agricultural land which was exempted.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the additional depreciation is allowable under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on plant and machinery installed in the captive power plant.
The Two-member bench comprising of Manish Borad (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on the plant and machinery installed during the year for manufacturing/generation of power since the generation of power is manufacturing or production of article or thing. Thus, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that mere Suspicion cannot take place for the purpose of passing an order hence addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was deleted.
The Two-member bench comprising of BR Baskaran (Accountant member) and N.K. Choudhry (Judicial member) held that neither the Assessee has received any cash nor paid any cash and there was no real cash credit during the year under consideration, therefore the amount in question as unexplained expenditure could not arise, on this count also, the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable and therefore addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi High Court has held that no Tax Deductible at Source (TDS ) under section 195 of the Income Tax Act when no income chargeable to tax arose on non-resident and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
It was observed that since the assessee had not claimed a deduction under section 35 of the Income Tax Act in the return of income, the deduction under section 35 is not allowed. since no income chargeable to tax arose in the hands of the non-resident, as per the provisions of the Act, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance on account of depreciation on electrical fittings holding them part of the plant and machinery and not furniture and fixtures as claimed by the AO. Further, depreciation on the computer peripherals was also allowed at @60 %relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of BSEC Rajdhani Power Ltd.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 is defective/invalid as it did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty.
The Bench comprising of ABY T. Varkey, Judicial Magistrate and Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member observed that, CIT(A) found the penalty notice issued by AO was prepared in the standard profoma which contents show that both faults/charge have been spelled out i.e. “ have concealed the particulars of income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. But CIT (A) found that AO failed to specify which charge/fault assessee is being alleged for levy of penalty.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that AO was not justified in assessing the sale value of shares as unexplained cash credit in both the years under consideration and confirmed the order of of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in deleting such addition.
The Bench comprising of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Magistrate) noticed that the assessee has furnished all the documents in support of purchase and sale of shares. However, the AO did not examine those documents and find fault with them. There is also no allegation made that the assessee was part of ring which indulged in the alleged price rigging. The AO has placed reliance on the report of Investigation wing to hold that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of long term capital gains.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the reason given by the CIT (E) to reject the application for registration under Section 12AB & 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained for non-application of mind.
The Bench comprising of ABY T. Varkey, Judicial Magistrate and Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member observed that there is no application of mind while passing the impugned orders andit was noted that the assessee has been enjoying registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act in the year 2001 onwards and the CIT(E) while processing the application for registration ought to have given opportunity to the assessee to reply to queries of CIT(E) if any, regarding the aim/objects of the assessee.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the claim of deduction under Section 80P (2) of Income Tax Act 1961 by cooperative society could not be denied on breach of principle of mutuality or violation of bye law.
The two-member Bench of Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act respectively, that the AO had invoked the provisions of Section 80P (2) (f) of the Income Tax Act and denied the society the benefits claimed by it. It was also held that the provisions of one sub-Section could not be imported to another sub- Section.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the addition made by the AO while completing the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was beyond the jurisdiction and hence upheld the impugned order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The Bench comprising of G.S. Pannu, President, and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member followed the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh where the petition filed by the assessee was allowed under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules and held that the AO had no jurisdiction to make the addition under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum proceedings was rendered academic and therefore, was dismissed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the revision order holding that the revision order passed without recording whether notice issued was served to assessee or not.
The two-member Bench of Kuldip Singh, (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the impugned order had been passed in haste without bringing on record if alleged notices issued to the assessee were ever served upon. It is also a fact on record that assessment order in this case was also passed at the back of the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the sale consideration stated in the sale deed pursuant to the public auction is to be accepted as the fair market value for the purposes of stamp duty.
The Two-member bench comprising of G.S. Pannu (President) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial member) held that the consideration paid by the assessee, being the higher/successful bidder, of the e-tender floated by the aforesaid bank is the fair market value of the property in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], and accordingly, the same was upheld. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the amount of subsidy received towards investment made in the expansion of industrial units shall be characterized as capital receipt.
The Single-member bench comprised of R.S. Syal (Vice-President) held that the amount of subsidy received by the assessee is towards the investment made in the expansion of its industrial unit under the Package Incentive Scheme 2001. Applying the ‘purpose’ test, it would be characterized as a ‘Capital’ receipt. Further, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that Explanation 10 to section 43(1) is attracted.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that change in the shareholding pattern of the same shareholders having 51% of the voting power won’t attract the provision of Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial member) held that the increase in shareholding of FHL in the assessee company, in any case, would not result in the change in the voting power of the shareholders.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the claim on the cost of construction shall be made in accordance with the Supplementary Development Agreement.
The Two-member bench comprising of Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial member) and Padmavathy S. (Accountant member) held that there was merit in the submissions of the Authorized Representative that the cost of construction as given by GPL keeps changing from time to time and that what the assessee for the year under consideration has taken as cost is less than the average rate submitted by GPL.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that when the property claimed is different from the property referred to in the sale agreement then benefit under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be attracted.
The Two-member bench comprising of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant member) held that the actions and intentions of the assessee were not very clear and the assessee was never in a position to confirm the conditions laid down in Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, despite of the fact that a liberal view may be taken in this case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur Bench has recently dismissed an appeal filed against the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to failure to prove sufficient cause to condone delay in filing appeal against revision order passed.
After carefully analysing the material facts the two member bench of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal and held that assessee has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur bench directed the deposit cost of Rs.2,000/- in the Prime Minister Relief Fund for failure to cooperate before appellate authority in respect of penalty proceedings.
After carefully analysing the material facts the two-member bench of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) directed to deposit cost of Rs.2,000/- in Prime Minister Relief Fund for failure to cooperate before the appellate authority in respect of penalty proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad bench held that no addition should be made towards part of amount received from the construction activities in Villa based on total sale consideration.
After carefully analysing the material facts the two member bench of K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member) and Rama Kanta Panda (Vice-President) quashed the orders of the authorities below and restored the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to cause enquiry as to the sale consideration that was received during the relevant assessment year and also whether the percentage on recognition of revenue was in consonance with the percentage of completion of the project as on 31/03/2013.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Foreign Tax Credit could not be denied on mere late filing of form No.67 as per India-Tanzania Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Single Bench of Suchitra Kamble, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the late filing of Form No.67 could not deny the entitlement of the assessee the benefit of treaty when the salary earned was from Tanzania and there is DTAA between India and Tanzania. The Bench further held that it was undoubtedly clear that the salary was earned outside India and the assessee had paid tax on the said element on foreign country and, therefore, the assessee could not be taxed twice on the same amount and would amount to double taxation.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the principle of Res judicata would not be applicable to the income tax proceedings as each year is a separate event.
The two-member Bench of M. Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee was holding the properties and earning income by letting out those properties under the main objective of the company and accordingly, the Supreme Court had upheld the factual finding that letting of the properties was the business of assessee. The Bench further observed that the revenue’s claim to treat was as income from house property was not accepted and here it was otherwise, as Revenue wanted the rental income claim to be considered as business income.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the non-compliance of e-notice due to non-reaching to the concerned officer as the employee handling the matter had left the company was a reasonable cause.
The two-member Bench of Balaganesh, (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the CIT(A) had not passed ex-parte order on merits of the case and the non-compliance was not deliberate
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that mere suspicious information received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (DDIT) cannot be a ground to raise an addition under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of B R Baskaran (Accountant member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial member) held that mere suspicion that the assessee has invested in alleged penny stock scrip cannot be made the basis of addition under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai held that Form 3CM and Form 3CL issued by DSIR is not mandatory for allowing deduction under Section 35(1)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961.Thus the bench quashed the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the above ground .
After carefully analysing the material facts the two member bench of Rahul Chaudhary , (Judicial Member) and B.R. Baskaran ,( accountant Member ) held that Form 3CM and Form 3CL issued by DSIR is not mandatory for allowing deduction under Section 35(1)(i) of Income Tax Act.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that if there is relevant material on the basis of which a reasonable person can form a requisite belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, then proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be validly initiated, and thus restored the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for de novo adjudication.
The Bench comprising of B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member observed that since the dispute in the present appeal is pertaining to the provision under which the assessment can be initiated, therefore, it is pertinent to analyse both the provisions.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the disallowances on grounds of delay in making the payments towards the Provident fund (PF) and Employees state insurance (ESI) cannot be initiated when the payment is made before filling of the Income Tax Return (ITR).
The Two-member bench comprising of Pramod Kumar (Vice-President) and Aby T Varkey (Judicial member) held that there were no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. Therefore, the plea of the assessee was upheld and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances on account of delayed payments of PF and ESI contributions. Thus, all the appeals of the assessee were allowed and pronounced in the open court today on the 30th of June 2022.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench has held that co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on interest and dividend received from co-operative banks and societies.
The bench noted that the interest income was attributable to the business of banking and as such qualified for the deduction. The bench clarified that the interest income in question was not from retained sale consideration but from investments specifically aimed at earning interest. Furthermore, the ITAT referred to subsequent judgments by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court that supported the appellant’s interpretation of the law. The bench also emphasised that the interest earned by the appellant from commercial banks should be considered under the head “income from other sources” and relief should be granted under section 57 of the Income Tax Act. In result, the two-member bench comprising Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) partly allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench directed to estimate 25% profit towards income from sale of milk products deposited in banks during the demonetisation period.
It was observed by the tribunal that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that RBI has withdrawn legal tender of SBNs from 09.11.2016 onwards leaving behind certain exemption categories. Although, the assessee does not come under the exempted category. However to protect his business, the assessee has accepted SBNs from customers and deposited into bank account.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Mahavir Singh, (Vice president ) and Manjunatha. G, ( Accountant Member) directed to estimate 25% profit towards cash deposits made during demonetization period and delete balance 75% addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that fee received towards live transmissions of cricket matches programs held in Australia is not royalty under India -Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement .Hence the bench deleted the addition made against the Cricket Australia.
It was observed by the tribunal that AO made addition in respect of license fee for live and non-live transmission qua Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd. on the ground that live transmission of sports events in the modern era is not merely a process of streaming event from the venue to the television set of the viewer.
After reviewing the facts the two member bench of Kul Bharat, (Judicial Member )and M.Balaganesh,( Accountant Member)held that license fees earned by the assessee from Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited pertaining to ‘live’ transmissions of the programmes i.cCricket matches held in Australia as not “Royalty” under the Income Tax Act as well as under the India – Australia Double Tax Avoidance Agreement. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the provision of gratuity after deduction of the actual gratuity charged to the profit in the profit/ loss account doesn’t attract disallowance under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) and Beena Pillai (Judicial member) was of the opinion that if the assessee has charged gross provision for gratuity to the profit as per profit & loss account, thereafter the assessee deducted actual gratuity payment of Rs.55,74,555/-, the assessee’s claim cannot be disallowed in principle. On the other hand, if the assessee has debited the actual payment of gratuity in the account provision for gratuity, then the payment of gratuity already gets subsumed, thereafter, the assessee cannot once again claim actual payment of gratuity in the return of income as it would amount to double deduction.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as there was no separate agreement between the Eshakthi and its non-resident US subsidiary for reimbursement of expenses.
The two-member Bench of Mahavir Singh, (Vice-President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, (Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(A) had merely gone by the fact that the ‘make available’ clause was not satisfied. However, considering the nature of services as enumerated in the remand report, ‘make available’ clause might not be even applicable for most of the services. The claim of the assessee hinged on the fact that the services were not technical in nature and the same were reimbursed on cost-to-cost basis. The Bench set aside the impugned order to the extent of disallowance.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Amritsar Bench held that reassessment should not be framed under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 if notice for search proceedings was issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer.
It was observed by the tribunal that search was also conducted separately at the residential premises of assessee and as such the assessee ought to have been issued notice under Section 153A Income Tax Act. Thus none of the conditions are satisfied in the case of the assessee, for the issue of notices under Section 153C Income Tax Act to the assessee in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2019-20 and hence, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, per se is bad in law.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Anikesh Banerjee, (Judicial Member) and Dr. M. L. Meena, (Accountant Member) held that reassessment should not be framed under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, if notice for search proceedings was issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore the bench deleted the penalty order passed under section271(l)(c)/270A of Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 holding that reopening after 4 years in the absence of tangible material would amount to change of opinion only.
The two-member Bench of Waseem Ahmed, (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar, (Judicial Member) observed that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer had not showed that any new tangible material available on record and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment, when the same was reopened after four years period.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
