This Round-Up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during September 2 to September 8, 2023.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the allegation of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) that the assessee has under stated the revenue shown in Profit and Loss (P&L) account is due to tax being deducted on Value Added Tax (VAT) amount, thus quashed the revisionary order under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member observed that issues relating to revenue of the assessee for the relevant financial year were duly examined with reference to the books of accounts and response of the assessee during assessment proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench held that amenities provided to tenants of house property compute under the head of Income from House Property.Therefore the bench deleted the double addition made by the assessing officer and also deleted computing the income under the head ‘Profit and gains from business.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Sanjay Garg ( Judicial Member) and Dr. Manish Borad,( Accountant Member) held that amenities provided to tenants of house property compute under the head of Income from House Property.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that extraction of minerals from beach sand involve change in non-living physical object / article into a new and distinct object / article having different name and use, the same would amount to manufacture. Hence quashed the revisionary order and allowed deduction under Section 32 AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member relied on the decision of DCIT vs. M/s Indian Ocean Garnet Sand Company where the assessee was engaged in similar activity of separation of garnet sand from beach sand and claimed the same to be manufacturing process and it was held that extraction of minerals from beach sand involve change in non-living physical object / article into a new and distinct object / article having different name and use. Thus, the same would amount to manufacture.
The Raipur branch of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the revision order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds that the Assessing Officer neglected to confirm the nature and source of the income during the reassessment proceedings.
The Two-member bench comprising of Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) held that there was a gross failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to verify the nature and source of the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.43 lacs, which in itself had formed the very basis for reopening of the assessee’s case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) ITAT) has held that the receipt of interconnectivity utility charges (IUC) from Indian customers or end users could not be taxed as royalty or Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and also as per India-Spain Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
The two-member Bench of Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the decision in case of “Vodafone Idea Ltd and Vodafone South Ltd” and held that payments received by assessee towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers / end users could not be considered as Royalty / FTS to be brought to tax in India under Section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Income Tax Act and also as per DTAA.
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while re-directing adjudication of an income tax appeal observed that the burden to prove that the large volume of cash deposit as a gift to a grandson during the demonetisation is not suspicious shall lies on the assessee.
A Single Bench of K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed it reasonable for the learned CIT(A) to entertain a doubt as to whether there was an occasion for Mr. Aleti Sanjeeva Reddy to possess that much of cash with him because it is unlikely that the same amount of Rs. 8 lakhs that was withdrawn six months earlier was kept idle without turning it in the business. However, no liability could be fastened on the likelihood or otherwise. Such a thing falls in the realm of verification of fact.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench deleted additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without detecting material to establish undisclosed transactions involving the sale /purchase of gold in cash outside books of accounts. There was no documentary evidence or material found by the lower authority to substantiate the transaction in the ledger account as pertaining to the assessee.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee, the two member bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President)and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer because the lower authority did not detect any material to establish undisclosed transactions involving sale/purchase of gold in cash outside books of accounts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench directed to compute addition towards 2% of profit on gold sold by assessee found during the course of search proceedings.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee two member bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, (Accountant Member) directed the assessing officer to compute additions towards 2% of profit on Sale of Gold by assessee found out during the course of search proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench directed to compute addition towards 2% of profit on silver sold by assessee found during the course of search proceedings. The AO made additions under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and he added an amount of Rs.2,89,300/-.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the explanation of the assessee, the two member bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) directed the assessing officer to compute addition towards 2% of profit on sale of silver by the assessee found out during the course of search proceedings.
The Rajkot bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the revision order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), holding the non-invocation of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as an error in the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.
The Two Member Bench comprising of Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member observed that the AO, having not taxed the addition made on account of unexplained creditors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as per the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, had acted erroneously, causing prejudice to the Revenue.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was not justified in confirming the order of Assessing Officer (AO) in excluding the alleged additional income offered during the course of survey as business income and attracting the provisions under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consequently the charging, under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The Bench comprising of R.S. Syal, Vice President and S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member observed that the assessee had explained the difference of Rs.37,00,000/- as stock purchased on high demand during the marriage seasons and bills will be received late. Therefore, it was concluded that the excess stock as found during the course of survey is nothing but business income flowing from assessee’s regular business.
The Indore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the deduction on actual cost is allowable before the imposition of tax on the entire amount received from the sale of land.
The Two-member bench comprising of Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial member) and B.M. Biyani (Accountant member) held that if the land is sold for Rs. 1,28,50,000/- the department cannot tax the entire sum of Rs. 1,28,50,000/- as income of assessee; the department has to allow deduction of actual cost incurred by assessee since the impugned land actually belonged to RLM once upon a time and the assessee purchased from RLM and therefore certainly incurred cost whatever amount may be.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the cancellation of registration of Trust under Section 12 AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 due to failure of assessee to respond to the notices of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] regarding genuiness of activities is not in the interest of justice, thus ordered for de novo consideration.
The Two member Bench comprising of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and G. D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member observed that It has to be appreciated that the purpose of the provisions for registration of trust under Section 12AB and granting of recognition under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, derives their spirit from the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal held that as no method has been applied by the TPO or DRP to bench-mark these transactions, the issue be remitted back to TPO.
Considering the facts, the two member bench consisting of Rajpal Yadav(vice president) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant member) remitted the issue back to the file of TPO to adjudicate upon this issue by taking into consideration the evidence placed on record by the assessee. Assessee is at liberty to furnish any further details to substantiate its claim. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Jodhpur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that when the interest is not received no disallowance can be made.
The two member bench consisting of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant member) held that when the interest is not received, no disallowance can be made. The assessee was noted having sufficient funds which were interest free and therefore, the bench vacated the disallowance of Rs. 13,23,694/-.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai bench held that loss on forward exchange contracts of the export business are business losses not speculative losses under Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Celebrity Fashions Ltd. wherein it was held that Loss on Forward Exchange Contracts of export business are business losses. Therefore the bench upheld the decision of the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai bench held that the retained amount from security deposit of leased housing property due to the cancellation of lease deed is assessable under the head ‘Income from House Property”.
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member) held that retained amount from security deposit of leased housing property due to the cancellation of lease deed is assessable under the head ‘Income from House Property”.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that as per Clause (q) to sub-section (1) of Section 246A an order imposing penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act finds place in the orders which are appealable before the CIT(A).
The two member bench consisting of Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) and Ravish Sood (Judicial member) he that the penalty imposed by the A.O vide his order passed under section.270A of the Act dated 02.03.2020 clearly falls within the realm of the orders appealable before the CIT(Appeals) under section 246A of the Act, therefore, the dismissal of the appeal of the present assessee company by taking a view to the contrary by the CIT(Appeals) cannot be sustained. The bench, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to his file with a direction to him dispose off the appeal afresh. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Information not being provided in prescribed format and duly signed by CA gives AO authority to use judicious approach and call for confirmation under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench consisting of Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbha (Accountant member) and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial member) held that the information was not in the prescribed format and duly signed by the Chartered Accountant. The AR for the assessee fairly submitted that he will substantiate the claim by filing proper evidence and the AO was directed to use judicious approach and if require may call for the confirmation under Section 133(6) with these observation. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no addition shall be imposed on the assessee when the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the payment made towards the amenities included in the basic cost of the flat.
The Two-member bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial member) and Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant member) held that the Assessing Officer while making the addition had not considered the payments made on account of various amenities like electricity connection, water connection, common facilities of various amenities provider by the builder/developer.
The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition holding that mere non-accounting of expired stocks part of opening stock would not have any impact on profitability.
The two member Bench of A.D.Jain, (Vice President) and Vikram Singh Yadav, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal observing that mere non- accounting of the expired stock as part of the opening stock wouldn’t have any impact on the profitability so declared by the assessee for the reason that such expired stock would again form part of the closing stock at the end of the financial year. The Bench further held that “Similarly, whether such stock has been destroyed or returned will not have any impact on the profitability so declared and what efforts have been taken by the assessee or should have been taken by the assessee are not relevant consideration for the reason that the same doesn’t affect the profitability so declared by the assessee as the assessee has not claimed any loss on account of writing off of such expired stock which otherwise it is entitled to.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the capital gain deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be allowable in the year of handing over of possession not in the year of payment of consideration.
The Division Bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice-President) and Girish Agrawal, (Accountant Member) Referring to the decision arrived in Bastimal K. Jain vs. ITO allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that “deduction under Section 54 was rightly allowed because of the purchase of new property, what is relevant is “handing over of possession” and not “payment of consideration”.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 would apply to undisclosed income which was declared during the survey proceedings.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the AO should have made requisite enquiries with regards to applicability of provisions of Section 269ST read with Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, while framing the assessment.
The Bench further observed that in the instant case, evidently, no enquiries with regards to applicability of Section 269ST read with Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, were made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, when evidently it was within the knowledge of the AO that the aforesaid amount was received by the assessee firm in cash, outside the books of accounts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore bench held that no Tax Deduction at source (TDS) shall be done in respect of the perquisite value of unfurnished accommodation provided by Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to its employees.
The tribunal finally agreed with the contentions of assessee representative that assessee falls under S.No.1 of the table under Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and therefore no TDS has to be deducted by the assessee on the perquisite value of the unfurnished accommodation provided by assessee to its employees. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) and Beena Pillai, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that if a person fails to furnish return of income then the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income.
The two member bench consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice president) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) held that The assessee has remained non-cooperative in all the proceedings. The cited case law of Hyderabad Tribunal bench supports the case of the revenue wherein similar facts exist. The bench, in para-23 of the order, considered Explanation-3 to Section 271(1)(c) which provides that if a person fails to furnish return of income then the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed there is no rebuttal to the contention of the assessee that the market value of the land was less than the stamp duty value, thereby directing to delete the impugned additions.
The two member bench consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) held that they do not find justification on the part of the lower authorities in making/confirming the impugned additions and the same were accordingly ordered to be deleted. Thus the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act 1961 should be construed liberally as the intention of the legislature was the promotion of growth and development of infrastructure.
The two-member Bench of PRASHANT MAHARISHI, (Accountant Member) and KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, (Judicial Member) noted that the CIT(A) had placed reliance on the earlier assessment order of the assessee for about nine years where the said claim of the assessee was allowed by the A.O. The A.O. had also failed to establish that the claim of the assessee was not eligible for deduction as per the scheme of Section 80IA of the Income Tax . There had also been no change in facts during the impugned year which was brought on record by the A.O. The Bench dismissed the appeal filed by revenue relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs ABG Heavy Industries Ltd wherein it was held that in case of deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act the intention of the legislature was to promote growth and development of infrastructure which had to be construed liberally.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that that there is no reason to disbelieve the value of closing work in progress disclosed by the assessee, thus set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A)] and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to accept the value of closing work in progress declared by the assessee and delete the consequential addition made.
The Bench comprising of B.R. Baskaran Accountant Member and Rahul Chaudhary Judicial Member noted that assessee has received arbitration award of Rs.24,88,231/- and Rs.6,16,571/during the years relevant to the AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. The above said awards were adjusted against the value of closing stock. After the receipt of above said award, the value of closing stock stood at Rs.7,95,000/- .
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a delay of 264 days in filing appeal and held that the assessee is eligible for set off of excess application of income of Asessment Years (AY) 1999-2000 to 2001-02 from the current year’s income.
The Bench comprising of George George K., Vice President and Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member condoned delay of 264 days since he Finance Manager came to know about the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) during October, 2022 close to the Annual General Meeting and there was a change in the officer bearers and new committee members, who were informed about the dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A). It was further observed that the claim made by the assessee for the previous three assessment years excess application has been denied stating that it is not permissible, but the AO has not disputed the figures claimed by the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that there is no vacillation to hold that the source of the cash deposited in the bank account has been undisputedly proved, hence deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The entire bank statement showing the cash deposit reflected the regular deposit of cash received from newspaper vendors throughout the year. The fact that the assessee is involved in the newspaper agency was also on record. The daily sale of newspapers of Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Times of India and sale of other newspapers at bus stand and other vends has been examined. Daily credit receipt and sale register were perused. Therefore, the Two Member Bench comprising of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member and Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member held that it has no vacillation to hold that the source of the cash deposited in the bank account has been undisputedly proved, and directed the deletion of the addition made by the AO. Thus, the the appeal of the assessee was allowed. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted addition holding that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act would be attracted only if some trading liability has been written back.
The two-member Bench of G. S. Pannu, (President), and Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) referred to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra wherein the Court, after discussing the various provisions as contained in Section 41(1) and also under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, held that there was a difference in trading liability and other liability.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Life being insured by transaction would not alter the basic character of transaction under Section 10(10D).
The two member bench consisting of Dr.B.R.R Kumar (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) held that it can be construed that the receipt fell under the head “capital gains” but not under “income from other sources”. The AO was directed to allow indexation benefit and tax the amount under the head “capital gains”.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) imposed a cost to make assessee understand the seriousness of the income tax proceedings.
The Two-member bench comprising of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial member) held that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the CIT(A). The assessee should be imposed a cost in order to make him understand the seriousness of the income tax proceedings. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of the income tax department as ‘other fees’ within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the capital gain derived by the sale of equity shares is not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of the India Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The two-member Bench of G.S. Pannu, (President) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice-President) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the allegation of the Assessing Officer regarding absence of commercial rationale or substance behind setting up of the assessee company, was also in the realm of imagination, rather than based on any concrete evidence. Moreover, the departmental authorities had miserably failed to establish the fact of the assessee, being a conduit company with reference to Article 27A of India-Mauritius DTAA, holding that the assessee, having been granted a valid TRC, had to be treated as tax resident of Mauritius and would be eligible to avail benefit under India-Mauritius DTAA.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the estimated addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in a hypothetical way by making disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The two-member Bench of Rajpal Yadav, (Vice President) and Girish Agrawal, (Accountant Member) observed that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act had been incorporated in the Act to cover a particular fact situation. This Section would apply where a trading liability was allowed as a deduction in earlier years in computing the business income of the assessee and the assessee had opted a benefit in respect of such trading liability in later year by way of remission or cessation of the liability. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the principle behind the Section was that a provision intended to ensure that the assessee would not get away with a double benefit namely once by way of a deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with the reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the foreign Tax Credit (FTC) could not be denied if form no.67 prescribed under rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules were not filed before the completion of the assessment.
The two-member Bench of Prashant Maharishi, (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal file by the assessee observing that, In the present case Form No. 67 had been filed by the Appellant before the processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Bench further referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sonakshi Sinha which held that, “The assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit, as she has filed form number 67 before completion of the assessment, though not in accordance with rule 128 (9) of The Income-tax Rules, which provided that such form shall be filed on or before the due date of filing of the return of income.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that there shall be no disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of dividend Income from the investments in equities.
Hence the two member bench of S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) directed to deleted disallowance computed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D in the absence of dividend Income from investments in equities.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not question the tax residency of entity holding the valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) as per the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The two-member Bench of G.S. Pannu, (President) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice-President) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that it had been a well settled that once the tax resident of Mauritius was holding a valid TRC, the Assessing Officer in India could not go behind the TRC to question the residency of the entity.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the revenue recognition method adopted by Red Hat India Pvt ltd. cannot be disturbed when duly supported by the mandate of Accounting Standard-9.
The Two-member bench comprising of Amit Shukla (Judicial member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant member) held that the Assessing Officer had clearly erred in changing the consistently followed method of revenue recognition adopted by the assessee. There were due merits of the revenue recognition adopted by the assessee which is duly supported by the mandate of AS-9.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Donation paid by the assessee to another charitable trust cannot be treated as income of the appellant trust.
The single member bench consisting of Manjunatha G. (Accountant member) held that the receiving trust is also registered under Section 12A of the Act and entitled for a benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, it was held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had erred in taxing donation paid to other charitable trust as income of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete additions made towards donation paid to other charitable trust as income of the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held land in question cannot be treated as non-agricultural land and to be treated as agricultural land not liable for tax on capital gain on sale.
The two bench member consisting of Beena Pillai (Judicial member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) held that land in question cannot be treated as non-agricultural land and has to be treated as agricultural land not liable for tax on capital gain. Since the bench has held that land is an agricultural land, other arguments raised by assessee did not require any adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad bench held that foreign assignment allowances received by the assessee during the employment for his company for services rendered outside india should not be taxed in India
After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of RamaKanta Panda, (Vice President) and K. Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member)held that foreign assignment allowance that was topped up to the TCC of the assessee, though it was transferred by the employer from their bank account in India to the Axis bank’s nostro accounts, is not taxable in India. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee .
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) stated that there is nothing on record which would show that any incriminating material was found during search operation which would show that the agricultural income belonged to the assessee instead of HUF (Hindu Undivided Family), thus held that the agricultural income is not to be considered in the hands of the assessee.
The Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member relied on the decision rendered in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that where no incriminating material was found in case of any of assessee either from assessee or from third party, High Court rightly set aside assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that due opportunity shall be provided to the assessee for establishing a case of non-receipt of the statutory notice.
The Two-member bench comprising of Saktijit Dey (Vice-President) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) held that the proceedings before the departmental authorities were completed ex parte and the assessee did not get any opportunity to establish her case regarding non-receipt of statutory notices and the actual quantum of investment made by her in purchase of house property. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and cooperate in finalizing the assessment proceedings. Thus, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the additions under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not be sustainable when the conditions for purchase were as per the conditions mentioned in the allotment letter.
The Two-member bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial member) and Arjun lal Saini (Accountant member) held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions by taking a correct view and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was upheld and the ground of appeal was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
