The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has tax deductions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowable on donations received by public trusts for recycling plastic waste.
The Huhtamaki Foundation challenged the rejection of its application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax cited the commercial nature of the foundation’s recycling activities. The foundation argued its environmental preservation goals met charitable criteria. The bench ruled in favor, noting the absence of objections or doubts about the foundation’s activities.
The Tribunal held that the assesse satisfies all the conditions for the grant of approval under section 80G of the Act and set aside the denying of the grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. The ITAT allowed the appeal.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that Initiation of revision proceedings by issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) without DIN is invalid.
The validity of Revision proceedings against Nova Properties Pvt. Ltd. was questioned due to the absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the Show Cause Notice and Revision order. The company faced scrutiny for sales turnover disparities. The assesse cited CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, but the Revenue argued DIN exceptions and regularization procedures were in place, maintaining the proceedings’ validity.
According to the analysis of a two-member bench of the Tribunal- Anupama Gupta (Accountant member) and T.r. Senthil Kumar (Judicial member), commencing Revision proceedings by issuing a Show Cause Notice without a Document Identification Number (DIN) and issuing a Revision order dated 30.03.2022 without DIN is legally invalid. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Assesse was granted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench held that, income tax authorities cannot determine how much expenditure should have been incurred for the purpose of business.
Serco India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of Serco Group PLC, faced increased charges in assessments, including sundry creditors and disallowances. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld and increased these additions, leading to an appeal. The tribunal observed that non-allocable expenses, like those for exploring new business opportunities, should not be arbitrarily disallowed. It emphasized the entity’s business judgment and deemed the debited expenses genuine and necessary for overall business operations, overturning the CIT(A)’s decision.
The tribunal highlighted that trade payables were nominal, indicating the genuineness of sundry creditors, and thus, held that the impugned addition under Section 68 was unwarranted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the stamp duty value on the date of the letter of allotment for making additions under section 56(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assesse Rekha Singh faced scrutiny for a jointly purchased property, with the AO adding ₹24, 33,350 under section 56(vii) (b) due to a variance between the declared and Stamp Duty values. The CIT (A) upheld the addition. Rekha Singh appealed, arguing that the Stamp Duty value on the agreement date should apply, citing the proviso to section 56(2) (vii). The tribunal will now assess the appeal, considering the payment’s timing and joint ownership.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, directed the AO to consider the stamp duty value on the date of allotment (16.10.2010) for section 56(2) (vii) (b) purposes, not the value on the registration date.
The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that availability of cash with different companies is sufficient to explain cash found at time of search.
Cross-appeals were filed by the Revenue and the assesse regarding unexplained cash found during a 2017 search in the SMC group. The CIT (A) upheld the addition under section 69A, considering the Accountant’s failure to explain the cash fully. The assesse argued that the cash belonged to various SMC group companies, recorded in their books. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, acknowledging the recorded cash in hand, and rejected returning the matter for unnecessary re-verification, considering prior acceptance by the Assessing Officer.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Astha Chandra, member (Judicial) and N K Billaiya, member (Accountant) concluded that in the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
The Jodhpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded an appeal to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for failure to consider fresh evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
The ITAT remanded an appeal to CIT(A)[NFAC] as the CIT(A), Bikaner, failed to consider fresh evidence submitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assesse, in response to an assessment order, appealed to CIT(A), providing additional evidence. Suresh O jha represented the assesse, arguing for the evidence’s acceptance. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)[NFAC] didn’t discuss the additional evidence and inferred its admission when forwarded to the ACIT, Sriganganagar, highlighting procedural lapses in the Faceless Appeal Scheme transition.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, as the Faceless Appeal was a new concept to CIT (A) as well as Assesse, the error which has crept is a possible human error, the tribunal bench observed.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order of CIT (A) [NFAC] to CIT (A) for denovo adjudication, the Tribunal Bench of Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member held.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, upheld the deletion of disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses.
Rustomjee Realty Private Limited faced scrutiny for claiming a Section 80G deduction on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure of Rs. 11, 00,000. The Assessing Officer disallowed it, citing non-voluntary payment under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The CIT (A) overturned the decision, but the revenue appealed. The tribunal ruled in favor, noting that while CSR expenses aren’t allowed under Section 37, they are deductible under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) upheld the deletion of disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act in respect of CSR expenses. Therefore, the bench dismissed the revenue appeal. Sanyogita Nagpal, Counsel, appeared for Revenue, and Naresh Kumar, Counsel, appeared for the assesse.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur bench, directed re adjudication in respect of the mismatch between 26AS and contract receipt of the assesse.
Sandeep Surendran Nair, a mechanical contractor, faced scrutiny for a Rs.28, 62,702 mismatch between 26AS and contract receipts in his 2014-15 return. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s addition. The assessee’s counsels argued that the discrepancies with Vasavadatta Cement and Ultra Tech Cement (Birla White) arose from accounting practices, supported by additional evidence. The tribunal accepted the evidence, noting no objection from the Revenue, and ruled in favor of the assesse.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) and Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) restored the file to the AO, with a direction to verify the claim of the assesse, considering the additional evidence. The bench allowed the ground raised by the assesse.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur bench, directed the assesse, Sandeep Surendran Nair, a mechanical contractor in the cement industry, to produce a Chartered Accountant certificate in prescribed Form 26 for the re-adjudication of the disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sandeep Surendran Nair’s scrutiny assessment for the 2014-15 tax year resulted in the disallowance of Rs.1, 54,827 under Sec. 40(a)(ia) for interest paid to NBFC. The CIT(A) upheld the decision, but the assessee’s counsels argued that the CA certificate, filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, showed inclusion of interest charges in Religare Finvest Ltd.’s return for the same assessment year, presenting evidence to support their case.
Despite the CA certificate mentioning interest charges inclusion, the tribunal found inaccuracies due to the non-use of the prescribed “Form 26A.” The bench directed the production of the Chartered Accountant certificate in Form 26 for re-adjudication of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, recognizing the technical error in the provided certificate’s format. The two-member bench comprised Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) and Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that the guarantee fee charged by the trust for providing third-party guarantees to small-scale industries did not amount to a profit motive.
The Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises faced scrutiny, with the Assessing Officer rejecting its exemption claim under section 11. Disallowances were made on the provision for guarantee claims. The CIT (A) partly allowed the claim, leading to a second appeal. The tribunal ruled in favor, emphasizing the trust’s non-profit motive and charitable activities, rejecting the Revenue’s contention of commercial thriving. The deficit in the trust’s financials reflected its role in facilitating inclusive growth for small and micro enterprises.
After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench concluded that the assesse trust, established by the Government of India, pursued the activity of advancing general public utility without engaging in trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the guarantee fee charged by the trust for providing third-party guarantees to small-scale industries did not amount to a profit motive.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directed the allowance of a deduction for the claim of guarantee provided by the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, an irrevocable trust settled by the President of India through the Ministry of Small Scale Industry (SSI) & Average Rate Index (ARI), Government of India, and Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI).
The Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, providing credit guarantees to MSMEs, faced scrutiny with the AO disallowing a deduction for guarantee provisions. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance. The tribunal, considering the mercantile system and citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rotrock Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, recognized provision for warranty as a legitimate deduction, overturning the lower authorities’ decision.
After reviewing the facts, the two-member bench directed the allowance of the deduction for the guarantee provided by the trust to lending institutions, supporting the ground raised by the assesse.
The Kerala High Court directed the petitioner to file a stay application as the Income-tax appeal is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on Income Tax Recovery
Appellants Puliyammakkal Mathai Sebastian and Punathil Nishriya contested an order by the 1st respondent, requiring 20% payment of the demand to be treated as non-defaulters in Income Tax Act assessments. The Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petitions. The appellants were advised to file stay applications before the Appellate Authority, as their appeals against assessment orders were pending. Sri. S. Ananthakrishnan represented the appellants, and Sri. Christopher Abraham represented the income tax department.
The Single Judge has granted one week to the appellants to file the stay applications. While dismissing the petition, the division bench of Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath held that “if the appellants prefer stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one week from today, he shall consider and dispose of either the stay applications or the appeals itself within three weeks after the receipt of the stay applications after hearing both sides.
An estimated addition of 10% (Rs.48,53,306/-) to the assessee’s income was made due to lacking account books and vouchers. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined and deleted the addition upon the assessee’s appeal.
The Revenue appealed against additions, while the assesse filed a Rule 27 petition, contending unsustainability without incriminating post-search material and finalized assessment. The counsel argued against a deemed dividend addition, highlighting the assessee’s non-registration as a shareholder, resulting in deletion of the addition and dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal. The Rule 27 petition emphasized the absence of incriminating material and finalized assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reviewed facts, obtained a remand report, and deleted the addition for advance payment without TDS, criticizing the Assessing Officer’s mechanical approach.
After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the two-member bench of the tribunal comprising Yogesh Kumar (Judicial) member and Shamim Yahya (accountant) member concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not contest the proposition. The reasons presented by the Appellate Authority are deemed cogent, and we affirm them. Consequently, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. In conclusion, all three appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the salary received by a Non-Resident of India (NRI) in India by offering employment in Singapore shall not be taxed in India.
The assesse, employed by M/s. Master Card India Service Pvt Limited, received a salary of Rs. 445.88 Lacs during a long-term assignment in Singapore. Claiming the salary was taxed in Singapore, the assessee didn’t offer it to tax in India. The AO, citing Articles 15 and 25 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, ruled that as a Singapore resident, the assessee wasn’t eligible for relief under Article 15, and the salary was taxed in India.
The two-member bench, consisting of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), ruled in favor of the assessee, stating they’re entitled to Article 15 benefits under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Verification is required to ensure the income was already taxed in Singapore, and no credit for Indian taxes was claimed there. The appeal was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that non-registration of gift deeds cannot be considered to be a sham transaction as the assessee was in full possession of the property sold by a registered sale deed.
The Assessing Officer (AO) raised concerns about the Rs.12.50 crores credited to the assessee’s account, claiming it as unexplained income under Section 69A. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT (A)] argued for the applicability of Section 2(47) (vi), considering the de facto transfer of immovable property through a gift deed, allowing the Section 54 exemption. The addition was deleted, and the CIT (A)’s decision was upheld in the appeal.
The Two-member bench comprising of N.K. Billaiya (Accountant member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) held that no doubt the gift deed was not registered but the same cannot be rubbished as the sham transaction since the assessee was in full possession of the said property which was subsequently sold by her by way of a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.12.50 crores which was credited to her bank account held with HDFC Bank. By no stretch of the imagination provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act can be applied to such transactions as the credit is the outcome of the sale of property. It is not a case of the revenue that the assessee has introduced her own unaccounted money by depositing the same in her bank account in the garb of the sale of some immovable property. Thus, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT (A)] and held that the death of the director and Chartered Accountant (CA) of the assessee’s company is a reasonable cause in filling of the delay appeal.
The counsel submitted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 2100 days. He referred to the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee company. The counsel submitted that due to reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of the appeal i.e. (i) due to the death of the Director and Chartered Accountant dealing with the matter of the assessee company (ii) due to submission of the change of the address to wrong destination by the accountant the assessee could not represent before the CIT (A) and therefore, he submitted that order of the CIT (A) may be restored for deciding afresh.
The Two-member bench comprising Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial member) held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient reason in non-representing before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. Before the bench, the counsel has given an undertaking that he should comply with all the notices issued by the CIT (A). The order of the CIT (A) was set aside and the matter was restored to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order passed without Document Identification Number (DIN) number shall be treated as invalid.
The counsel argued that the absence of a DIN in the DRP order violates CBDT Circular No.19/2019, rendering the order void ab initio. The jurisdiction assumed is invalid, and the proceedings are vitiated. The DRP order lacks a DIN in its body, making it invalid. Subsequent communication of the DIN is considered superfluous.
The Two-member bench comprising of Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) held that the impugned DRP order was invalid and shall be deemed to have never been passed. Therefore, the impugned DRP order was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 192B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payments made to consultant doctors and retainer doctors.
The TDS survey on M/s. Fortis Group found a liability of Rs. 2, 91, 71,684 under Section 192B, with the assessee having deducted Rs. 1, 10, 06,561. The Assessing Officer deemed the assessee an ‘assessee in default’ for not deducting Rs. 1,81,65,123 as TDS on payments to consultant and retainer doctors, treating them as salary. The order was passed by the ACIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
The Two-member bench comprising of BRR Kumar (Accountant member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) held that the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act apply to the retainer-doctors and not those of Section 192B of the Income Tax Act after noting differences between the two types of agreements i.e. salaried doctors and doctors appointed on a retainer ship basis. Certain clauses in the contract with retainers gave the erroneous impression to the AO that creating an employer-employee relationship has been explained by the assessee that they do not create such a relationship. Thus, the appeal of the revenue was rejected.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be allowed on the cost of funds and proportionate administrative expenses for earning interest income.
The co-operative society, after filing a return declaring Rs.2, 50,200 income with a deduction of Rs.33, 00,407 under Section 80P, faced a Section 154 order by the Assessing Officer. The AO disallowed Rs.23, 94,857 of the Section 80P claim and added Rs.9, 05,550 interest income, resulting in an income of Rs.44, 56,157. The appeal is pending at the National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT (A)].
The Single-member bench comprising of George George K (Vice-President) held that the deduction of the cost of funds and proportionate administrative expenses was a deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act for interest income assessed as “Income from Other Sources”. This prayer of the assessee has been accepted by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO. In light of the above judicial judgment of the High Court, the AO was directed to allow the cost of funds and proportionate administrative expenses for earning interest income to the extent of Rs.9, 05,550/- as a deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition made under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that the interest income generated on funds owned by the Government of India (GOI) is not an income in hands of the appellate company.
NHIDCL, a government-owned entity, faced an AO’s addition under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act for treating interest as income. The CIT (A) ruled in favor of NHIDCL, emphasizing its role as a GOI Nodal Agency, earning agency charges per MORTH’s circular. Funds from the government were used for project execution, not treated as income. Establishment expenses were covered by agency charges, and funds were managed separately to meet project requirements.
The Two-member bench comprising of B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial member) held that when an assessee collects certain income on behalf of the Government and remits the income back to the government and TDS was deducted in the name of the assessee then in all practical purposes income collected by the assessee was its income in hands of the assessee and the rent paid back to the Government was its expenses and the TDS credit/refund will be provided to the assessee in whose name TDS has been deducted. Hence, in this situation also there would be no income chargeable to tax. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) while granting relief to NTPC and held that the proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated on account of income received from the fly ash and cenosphere.
The assessee’s return showed a NIL income and a loss to be carried forward. PCIT initiated Section 263 proceedings, deeming the assessment as prejudicial to revenue. The issue revolved around assessing Rs.88, 26, 37,126/- on fly ash and cenosphere sales. The Authorized Representative cited a similar case where the Tribunal favored the assessee, urging consistency. The appeal sought to uphold the Tribunal’s decision in favor of the assessee.
The Two-member bench comprising B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial member) held that no addition was called for on account of income from fly ash and cenosphere. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the PCIT was hereby set aside. And the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the claim of exemption under Section 10(10)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of gratuity and leave encashment shall be allowed when the assessee is an employee holding a civil post.
The counsel argued that the issues align with precedents like Ram Kanwar Rana vs. ITO and Manohar Lal Batra vs. ITO, where the Tribunal favored employees of Hisar Agricultural University. The Departmental Representative cited a CBDT notification, asserting that university employees aren’t state employees, and hence, the monetary limit applicable to government employees doesn’t extend to them.
The Two-member bench comprising of Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) held that it was demonstrated that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) conduct rules are applicable to the employees of Hisar Agriculture University and they are treated at par with the Scientists of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Under these undisputed facts, there was no reason to take a different view on the matter. The AO was directed to delete the impugned addition. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the corpus-specific voluntary contribution is a capital receipt and cannot be offered to tax in the case of trust not registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The AO, assuming jurisdiction under Section 263, held the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue’s interest due to corpus donation treatment. The AO found the assessee ineligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act regarding the Rs. 44.25 crore corpus donation from Bandhan-Konnagar, an approved trust, as the assessee wasn’t registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT (A)] observed that the impugned receipt is a capital receipt that is to be kept permanently and only accretions are to be used. The utilization of the grant is governed by the directions of the donor and since the grant was not in the form of a corpus donation but was a specified grant given for utilization as per the directions of the donor, hence was a capital receipt and, accordingly, directed the AO to delete the impugned addition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
