This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan during the previous week from February 8th to February 14th.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the notional rental value of unsold flat cannot be taxable under house property head. The assessee, Ambuja Neotia Hotel Ventures, had appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15.
The ITAT observed that the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was a general one that required no adjudication.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer (AO) to consider fresh evidence in the unexplained expenditure addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee, Ambuja Neotia Hotel Ventures, had appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the validity of the reassessment based on Annual Information Return(AIR) information. Gajendra Pal Sharma, appellant- assessee, filed a return of income on July 25, 2012, declaring Rs. 2,34,600 as total income and Rs. 49,500 as agricultural income.
AIR information from the sub-registrar revealed that he purchased a residential property in Ghaziabad for Rs. 90,95,000, including stamp duty, on February 16, 2012, jointly with Meena Sharma.
The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s deletion of the ₹1.22 crore addition made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order of the CIT(A).In this case,Sachit Kumar Agarwal,respondent-assessee, was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act through an order dated December 30, 2019.
The total income was determined at ₹2,75,41,208, with an additional ₹5,93,000 as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer(AO) added ₹1,22,00,000 under Section 68 for cash deposits made during the demonetization period and increased the gross profit rate, leading to another addition of ₹1,01,54,618.
The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) CIT(A)’s decision to reduce the gross profit addition from ₹1.01 crore to ₹10.21 lakh. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order of the CIT(A).In this case,Sachit Kumar Agarwal,respondent-assessee, was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act through an order dated December 30, 2019. The total income was determined at ₹2,75,41,208, with an additional ₹5,93,000 as agricultural income.
The Assessing Officer(AO) added ₹1,22,00,000 under Section 68 for cash deposits made during the demonetization period and increased the gross profit rate, leading to another addition of ₹1,01,54,618.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted an exemption under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ruling that the unit in question was not merely a converted export unit but a newly established STPI unit, fulfilling all necessary conditions for the exemption.
Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., the assessee, engaged in the development, sale, and maintenance of software, filed its return of income on 27.11.2006, reporting a total income of Rs. 78,49,428 after claiming an exemption of Rs. 5,88,64,751 under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the addition of Rs. 53.02 lakhs as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act stating that the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of mere suspicion.
J.K. Jewel Craft, (assessee) a partnership firm engaged in the jewelry business. The Assessing Officer (AO), during the assessment for AY 2017-18, noted that the assessee deposited Rs. 80 lakhs during the demonetization period.
The Ranchi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allows the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal as the assessee opts for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee has requested before the ITAT the permission to withdraw the present appeal as the assessee, Gajanand Bhalotia, has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme of the Department.
The bench, by going through the facts of the captioned appeal filed by the assessee, noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme of the Department, which is extended up to 31st March 2025 as the date of the final application.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) sets aside the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period.
In this case, the assessee is engaged in the business of mobile recharge distribution of Reliance Retail Limited and had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs. 7,52,800.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reconsider using the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular for the addition of Rs. 1.06 crore as unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period.
JB Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd., (assessee) engaged in dairy farming did not file its Income Tax Return for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed a cash deposit of Rs. 1.06 crore in the company’s Syndicate Bank account, of which Rs. 89 lakh was deposited during the demonetization period.
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the assessment orders for Amit Kumar Gupta for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, noting a jurisdictional lapse in the transfer of the case.
The tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) in Bilaspur had transferred the assessee’s case from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in Ambikapur to the ITO in Korba without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, as required by law. In this case, the ITO in Korba initiated reassessment proceedings against the assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee had deposited Rs. 17,05,824 in cash into his bank account during the financial year 2010-11 (relevant to the assessment year 2011-12) but had not filed his income tax return.
The Lucknow bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to an erroneous calculation of the delay in filing an appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2019-20, where the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of a 551-day delay. The assessee, Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited, had filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20, claiming a deduction of Rs. 3,27,99,144 under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal as 2 appeals were filed by the assessee on the same subject matter due to technical error.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn arose from the order passed by the assessing officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The counsel on behalf of the assessee submitted that the present appeal was dismissed by the JCIT(A), and thus the assessee has appealed before the ITTA for relief. The counsel has requested the ITAT to grant the assessee permission to withdraw the captioned appeal.
In a recent ruling, the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the disallowance of ₹88 Lakhs in knitting charges under Section 40A(3) as cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit. The assessee, Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt Ltd, a manufacturer of cotton and synthetic yarn, was subjected to a survey under Section 133A.
The survey revealed cash deposits of ₹19.02 Crore made during the demonetisation period. The company claimed that such deposits were from cash sales of clothes, which were recorded in its books and reflected in revised VAT returns files before the survey.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) cannot introduce a new adjustment in the current assessment year ( AY ) if no such adjustment was made in prior years for identical transactions, explaining the principle of consistency in transfer pricing assessments.
IQVIA Analytics Services Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as IMS Health Analytics Services Pvt. Ltd., is an assessee that provides sales and marketing analytics and business consulting services in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an erroneous addition of Rs. 19,253 made by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) after finding that the amount had already been included in the taxable income.
HPL Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, had filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, declaring a total income of Rs. 61,81,971 and opting for a concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs. 55 lakh as undisclosed income, ruling that the addition could not be made solely on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence.
Harish Jain,appellant-assessee,was part of a search and seizure operation on 07.09.2017 related to the Resonance Group, Kota. Following the search, his case was transferred to the Central Circle-Kota. The assessee, who earned income from salary, house property, and other sources, filed a return of income on 18.07.2018, declaring Rs. 15,67,000.
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the Rs. 3 lakh income addition, ruling that the proportionate income was already disclosed in the tax return.
Harish Jain, appellant-assessee, was searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. During the search, a rent agreement document for House No. 175 Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kota, between Shri Umesh Kumar and the appellant was seized. The agreement, covering the period from May 1, 2014, to April 30, 2015, showed a total rent of Rs. 9,50,000, with Rs. 2,50,000 paid upfront and the rest paid in three installments by January 2015.
Read More: The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the Rs. 4.28 crore addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 for unexplained loans, finding the loans were repaid within the same year and conducted through banking channels.
The Revenue-appellant,appealed against the order dated 25/06/2024 for the assessment year 2011-12, passed by the CIT(A), following an appeal against the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer(AO).
In a recent ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned a tax demand related to ₹1.36 crores in cash deposits made during the demonetisation period by the assessee.
The Assessee, Jai Singh, a travel agent, deposited a total of ₹1.36 Cr in old currency notes into his bank accounts during the demonetisation period. The tax authority classified these deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This led to an increase in his assessed taxable income to ₹1.41 crore.
Read More: The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer (AO) to reassess the appellant’s case, a dispute on capital gains taxation for the assessment year(AY) 2016-17.
The appellant, Badri Narayanan, had filed his income tax return for the AY 2016-17 in March of 2018, declaring a total income of ₹4.3 Lakhs. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. It was noted by the authority that the assessee had sold a property for an amount of ₹5.52 Crore, which led to the reassessment of the assessee’s account under Section 148.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of Rs. 25 lakh as unexplained cash credits, ruling that the loan from the assessee’s promoters was genuine.
Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,appealed against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2014-15 which included proceedings under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act.The case was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings were conducted ex-parte.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that reimbursement of expenses is not taxable as FTS under Article 13(4) of the India-UK Treaty.
The assessee, Jefferies International Ltd. is a corporate entity that is a tax resident of the UK and has a subsidiary in India, Jefferies India Private Ltd. (JIPL). It was observed by the assessing officer (AO) that the assessee had provided administrative support services to the Indian subsidiary during the year under consideration.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that payments received in lieu of administrative support services do not qualify as fees for technical services under the India-UK double tax avoidance agreement (DTAA).
The assessee, Jefferies International Ltd., is a corporate entity that is a tax resident of the UK and has a subsidiary in India, Jefferies India Private Ltd. (JIPL). The assessing officer (AO) observed that the assessee had provided administrative support services to the Indian subsidiary during the year under consideration.
The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)restored the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) by disallowing the depreciation claim of ₹2,66,81,164 due to the lack of evidence for the installation of machinery.
The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. In this case, Mithra Kyokuto Special Purpose Vehicles Company Pvt Ltd.,respondent-assessee,engaged in manufacturing tippers and concrete mixtures, filed its income tax return on November 30, 2012, reporting a loss of ₹3,12,52,199. The return was processed under section 143(1), and the case was later selected for scrutiny.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] after non-compliance with statutory notices led to penalties and additions for unexplained cash deposits.
Mauli Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit,appellant-assessee, was reassessed for not filing a return and depositing ₹4.67 crore in banks and cooperative societies. Due to non-response to notices, the Assessing Officer(AO) finalized the assessment under Section 147, read with Sections 144 and 144B, determining the income at ₹4.67 crore. A penalty of ₹40,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(b), and ₹1.44 crore under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals )[CIT(A)] order on the denial of exemption under Section 54 of Income Tax Act,1961 due to lack of supporting documents.
Manoj Kumar Ekambaram Arcot,appellant-assessee,filed his income tax return on 30/09/2015. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large deductions claimed under sections 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, and 54GA. The assessee did not reply to the notices, leading to a show-cause notice for penalty.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh consideration in a case involving a penalty under Section 270A of Income Tax Act,1961 for under-reported income, after the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without considering the relief granted in the quantum proceedings.
Mono Steel (India) Ltd,appellant-assessee,was involved in manufacturing and resale of angle channels ingots. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) noticed that the appellant-assessee’s power plant division showed a net profit of 67.16%, much higher than the 2.77% net profit from its steel business. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80-IA for the power plant division, but the steel division, which was linked to it, showed much lower profits, raising concerns of tax evasion.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Bank of Maharashtra for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s (AO) assessment order was not erroneous, even if it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The assessee, Bank of Maharashtra, a public sector bank, filed its income tax return for AY 2018-19, declaring a total loss of ₹1,612.29 crores under standard provisions. The return was processed under Section 143(1), and later, after scrutiny selection, a full assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B was conducted. The AO determined the profits under Section 115JB at ₹6911.69 crores, which was later rectified to ₹2191.38 crores through an order under Section 154.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
