The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that an exemption under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act would not be granted if the investment was not made within the specified timeframe. The case involved an original assessment under Section 143(3), where the total income was assessed at Rs. 2,44,769. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 147, and the Assessing Officer found that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 54EC for investing Rs. 73.50 lakhs in NABARD Bonds. The AO argued that the investment was made beyond the 6-month period from the date of transfer, which occurred on 2.4.2004. The tribunal, led by H.L. Karwa and N.K. Billaiya, agreed with the Revenue’s stance, stating that the investment exceeded the permissible timeframe. Consequently, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed as the investment was not made within the specified limitation period outlined in Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, upholding the decision of the CIT(A).
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) offered relief to Oriental Bank by overturning an ex-parte order due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The government bank, engaged in banking activities, faced a demand of Rs. 4,92,684 for non/short deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act. Despite the case being fixed for a hearing, the assessee failed to provide information, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,67,763 by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) upheld the penalty in an ex-parte order, confirming the levy under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT, comprising Sandeep Gosain and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, set aside the ex-parte order, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh adjudication. The AO was instructed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, requiring the submission of necessary documents and evidence. The ITAT granted the assessee another chance to be heard, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing in the interest of justice.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted another opportunity to the assessee as he was unaware of the notices that were being issued in the Income Tax Portal. The counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] has dismissed the appeal in limine, without deciding the issues urged before him on merits on the reasoning that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. The Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee is an aged man and no physical notice was issued to him. All the notices were posted in the income tax portal and the assessee was not aware of those notices. Accordingly, he prayed that, in the interest of natural justice, all the issues may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the bench provided one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case properly before the CIT(A). Thus, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled on a case involving a delay of 1161 days in filing an appeal, asserting that the reasons presented by the assessee did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. The counsel for the assessee explained the delay, stating that it was beyond the assessee’s control due to her relocation from Pune to Chennai after residing with her son. The Departmental Representative contested this, arguing that the reasons given were vague and unreasonable, pointing out that the assessee had filed an e-return and participated in proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] during the said period. The tribunal, consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice-president) and Manjunatha. G (Accountant member), held that the assessee displayed a casual approach in pursuing her case despite being aware of the need to file the appeal within the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the bench rejected the petition for condonation of the significant delay and dismissed the appeal as unadmitted.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ordered a reevaluation in the case of Hasaniya Healthcare Sarvajanik Trust, a charitable trust seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal noted that the trust’s chartered accountant had misinterpreted the medical store at the hospital, classifying it as a business in the Form 10B submission. The trust, focused on providing non-discriminatory medical relief through Fatema Hospital in Himatnagar, faced rejection of its application by the CIT (Exemptions) without an opportunity to address discrepancies.During the appeal, the trust’s representative explained that the portrayal of the charitable hospital engaging in trade was an error by the Chartered Accountant’s office. The tribunal acknowledged contradictions in the forms and responses but attributed them to inadvertent mistakes. It emphasized the lack of a fair opportunity for the trust to clarify these discrepancies, directing a fresh adjudication. The ITAT’s decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in tax matters and acknowledges unintentional errors by the trust’s representatives.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled in favor of Tata Steel Ltd., deleting the Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment.
The ITAT, however, disagreed, emphasizing that transactions under Section 80IA(8) are not necessarily governed by ALP principles. The decision underscores the need for a context-specific approach in determining the Arm’s Length Price for eligible businesses under Section 80IA(8).
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled in favor of Hind Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., holding that the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for transfer pricing adjustment concerning Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT) under Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been omitted as per the Finance Act, 2017. The case originated when the assessee, after filing the income tax return, had its case selected for scrutiny and was subsequently referred to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) to determine the arm’s length price of transactions with its associate enterprises under Section 92BA(i).
The TPO observed that the assessee had purchased aluminum wire rod from its associate enterprises, benchmarking the transactions using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method. Disagreeing with the TPO’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who deemed the preference given by the Assessing Officer to the TPO invalid and bad in law. The revenue appealed to the tribunal, arguing that the omission was brought about by the Finance Act, 2017. However, the tribunal, relying on legal precedent and interpreting the Finance Act, 2017, held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) implies any reference to the TPO for SDT is invalid, ultimately dismissing the revenue’s appeal.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled in favor of an assessee, allowing the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years against income from capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the setoff, assessing the total income without considering the unabsorbed depreciation adjustment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO’s decision, leading to the appeal.
The Authorized Representative argued that the CIT(A) erred in denying the setoff claim, emphasizing that it is permitted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT, represented by Pavan Kumar Gadale, a Judicial member, held that unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years could be set off against short-term capital gains. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was instructed to allow the claim for setoff of unabsorbed depreciation against income from short-term capital gains. The AO was further directed to compute interest under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. This decision affirms the assessee’s entitlement to set off unabsorbed depreciation, providing clarity on the application of provisions related to income from capital gains.
The AO, without conducting an independent investigation, unilaterally concluded that the transactions were not genuine, adding short-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] partially allowed the assessee’s appeal, deleting the addition. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, emphasizing the AO’s failure to conduct an independent investigation and reliance on presumptions.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed exemption under Section 10(38) and offered the profit on share sales as business income, setting off losses from other trades. The decision highlights the importance of a thorough and evidence-based approach by tax authorities in making additions under Section 68, rather than relying on assumptions, preserving the principle of fair and diligent assessment. The appeal of the revenue was ultimately dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has provided relief to IDBI Bank, stating that interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be calculated by first adjusting the refund towards the interest component and then the remaining balance towards the tax component. The case originated with the filing of the original return of income by the assessee, IDBI Bank, declaring a total income. Subsequently, a revised return was filed, and after scrutiny, the assessed income was revised. The issue arose when the Assessing Officer (AO) incorrectly granted interest under Section 244A in the order giving effect to the Tribunal’s decision.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] relied on a decision in a similar case involving Bank of Baroda and granted relief to IDBI Bank. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, rejecting the department’s argument that interest on refunds should not be granted to the assessee. The tribunal emphasized that interest under Section 244A should be calculated by adjusting the refund towards the interest component first. The AO was directed to recompute the interest, adhering to this principle after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. This decision establishes a clear methodology for calculating interest under Section 244A, benefiting the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
