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 January 11th to January 17th 2025.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] after finding that the appeal had been dismissed ex-parte without proper consideration.
Juned Yusuf Shethwala,appellant-assessee,had his case re-opened under section 147 of the Act based on the Department’s information. The assessee paid Rs. 32,32,572/- for credit card bills and Rs. 8,71,152/- for share transactions in the Assessment Year(AY) 2010-11. In response to the notice under sections 148/142(1), the assessee’s Chartered Accountant attended the proceedings and provided details.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Allahabad Bench, allowed an appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication due to procedural lapses. The case involved Asha Agarwal, appellant-assessee,whose appeal pertained to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.
The Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding Rs.33,29,000 as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A. Additionally, Rs.49,27,360, representing 10% of other bank deposits, was added as unexplained investments. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], but no relief was granted.
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) gave relief to Sujit Biswas, a vegetable trader and commission agent. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC) for the Assessment year 2016-17.
Sujith Biswas, the assessee, also the proprietor of Baba Lokenath Sahal Sabji Bhandar, filed his income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16, declaring a total of ₹2.9 Lakhs as income. The return included income from vegetable sales amounting to ₹32 Lakhs and commission income of ₹6.9 Lakh from acting as the middleman between fruit and vegetable growers and sellers. During the assessment, however, the ITO noticed a cash deposit of ₹1Cr in the assessee’s ICICI Bank account, which exceeded his declared income return.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for further examination of the disallowance of a ₹10 Lakh donation claimed under Section 35AC of Income Tax Act,1961.
Mrugeshbhai Ravindrabhai Desai,appellant-assessee, challenged the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)’s order, ruling that the ₹718.87 crore exemption claim under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of Income Tax Act,1961 lacked supporting documents.
Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society,appellant-assessee, did not file its income tax return for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer(AO) found unexplained transactions and issued a notice under Section 148. In response, the assessee filed a NIL return. However, the assessment included additions for income from contracts, rent, cash deposits, interest, professional fees, and time deposits.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [ CIT(A) ]’s decision regarding unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961, confirming the reduction of additions based on peak credit and denying the telescoping of income.
Atiresh Sales Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,was in the business of manufacturing and trading mill board paper, cone, S.S. rolled patta, and also acted as a commission agent. The company filed its return of income showing Rs. 2,77,330/-, but during assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) increased the total income to Rs. 61,45,700/- by adding deposits from three parties, whose creditworthiness was not proven.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed relief to the assessee which had filed a revised return for Assessment Year(AY) 2014-15 to set off brought forward losses under Section 72(3) of Income Tax Act,1961, based on a Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( BIFR ) scheme.
Vadilal Dairy International Ltd, appellant-assessee, engaged in manufacturing milk and milk products, filed its income tax return for AY 2014-15 on September 29, 2015, declaring a total income of ₹1.20 crore. A revised return was filed on September 22, 2016, showing nil income after setting off brought forward losses of ₹4.44 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter concerning the addition of Long-Term Capital Gains ( LTCG ) concerning a property transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing the need for verification of possession transfer and receipt of consideration by the Assessing Officer ( AO ).
Sachin Ramesh Pawar, the assessee, runs a computer center. On March 2, 2013, the assessee and seven co-owners entered a Development Agreement with Shri Nath Builders Promoters P. Ltd. Under this agreement, the co-owners were to receive a built-up area of 1189.59 square meters valued at Rs. 2,31,95,500 as consideration.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 21,28,710 made by the Assessing Officer due to the taxpayer’s mistakenly misclassification of construction expenses as commission expenses while filing the income tax return.
Badshah Abdul Patel, the assessee, is a contractor and builder engaged in material and labor contracts. The assessee filed his income tax return on 29.08.2018 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and revised it to declare a total income of Rs. 2,98,410.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter concerning the addition of Rs. 24,89,121 as gross receipts of commission income under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for fresh adjudication.
The assessee, Prakash Dipchand Kapadnis, an individual, did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer (AO) identified commission/brokerage income of Rs. 24,89,121 credited to the assessee’s PAN based on Form 26AS with a TDS of Rs. 2,48,912.
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) disallowed the contributions to the PACS development fund to be deducted from tax under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed the appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), made for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee, Kota Central CO-OP Bank Ltd, is a co-operative bank registered with the registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. The assessee’s case was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act, in which the assessee filed its return totalling ₹7 Crore, deducting an amount of ₹23 lakhs as contributions made to the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) development funds as business expenditure.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted a Rs.33.75 Lakh disallowance under Section 14A for exempt dividend income, noting that the investments were made in prior years and the dividend income was passively received.
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.,appellant-assessee,was involved in manufacturing drugs and pharmaceuticals. It also offered marketing and consultancy services in areas like fine chemicals, industrial glass containers, packing materials, and electronic instruments. The company had 15 divisions, including service units that supported other units within the corporation
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that amalgamation expenses could not be treated as business expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upholding the disallowance of interest on bonds issued during the amalgamation of the assessee company .
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) noted that the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee agreed that the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1771/Ahd/2015 for AY 2001-02 had ruled against the assessee. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the decisions of the lower authorities.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the 50% disallowance of foreign travel expenses, ruling that the disallowance was arbitrary due to a lack of evidence supporting claims of personal use.
The two-member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member)found the AO’s disallowance of 50% of the expenses to be arbitrary, as no evidence was provided to support the claim of non-business use. The CIT(A) wrongly upheld the disallowance based on the lack of further evidence from the assessee, even though there was enough documentation showing the travel was for business.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for verification of employer contributions disallowed under Section 43B(b) of Income Tax Act,1961 due to delayed payments
Following this, the appellate tribunal decided to send the issue back to the AO for verification to check if the contributions were paid before the return filing due date. If the payments were made within the allowed time under Section 43B(b), the disallowance should be allowed. Therefore, the tribunal partly allowed the ground, subject to verification by the AO.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that business losses, including irrecoverable amounts from regular business transactions such as bad debts, advances, and deposits, are allowable under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.,appellant-assessee,was involved in manufacturing drugs and pharmaceuticals. It also offered marketing and consultancy services in areas like fine chemicals, industrial glass containers, packing materials, and electronic instruments. The company had 15 divisions, including service units that supported other units within the corporation.
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that interest income earned from cooperative banks qualifies for a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing that cooperative banks are essentially cooperative societies.
Dnyaneshwar More Bigarsheti Gramin Pat Puravatha Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., the assessee, is a cooperative credit society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The society filed its income tax return declaring Nil income after claiming a deduction under Chapter VIA amounting to Rs. 13,48,854 and a business loss of Rs. 3,56,511 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that no additions could be made in completed or unabated assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless supported by incriminating material seized during a search.
Balajee Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, filed its original income tax return declaring a total income of Rs. 10,96,073. A search operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on February 11, 2020, on the “Rika-Lalwani-Patodia-Prakash Group,” of which the assessee was a part.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the filing of Form 10CCB, required for claiming deductions under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, is not mandatory if it is submitted before the conclusion of the assessment process.
Hi Tech Systems & Services Limited, the assessee, is engaged in operating wind power plants and is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed its income tax return on 07.11.2022, within the extended deadline set by the CBDT for the assessment year (AY) 2022-23.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter for fresh adjudication citing that the assessee was not afforded proper hearing opportunities during the assessment proceedings and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the appeal solely due to a 28-day delay in filing without addressing the merits of the case.
The assessee, Dharmendra Sumatichandra Sheth HUF, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 28 days in filing without examining the substantive grounds raised by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the revision order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) following the approval of the resolution plan under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Care Office Equipment Limited, appellant-assessee,was in the business of selling computer hardware and providing bar code stickers, equipment, and printers. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, the company filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 33,88,77,148. The return was processed, and notices were issued for scrutiny, but the assessee did not respond.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the assessee to submit a new cash flow statement as evidence and directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to reassess the matter concerning Rs. 1.19 crore added as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Virtiben Preyashkumar Shah, the assessee, filed an income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,76,740. During the assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,19,41,872 to the returned income, treating the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts as unexplained under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO assessed total income at Rs. 1,23,18,612.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter concerning the addition of unexplained investments in shares, directing the taxpayer to provide relevant proof to substantiate the sources of investment during reassessment.
Vandana Dipakbhai Parmar, the assessee, did not file her return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessing officer passed an order on July 22, 2023, under Section 147 read with Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the assessee’s total income at Rs. 18,19,630.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad, recently delivered a judgment favoring Amey Pravinbhai Brahmbhatt in a case concerning unexplained investments not forming part of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening the assessment. The case arose when the AO reopened the assessment for the year 2011-12, alleging that the taxpayer had engaged in transactions involving accommodation entries worth ₹49,10,402 in penny stock shares of M/s. Swarna Sarita Gems Ltd. However, the AO did not make any addition concerning this transaction during reassessment. Instead, an unrelated addition of ₹6,37,000 was made, citing unexplained investment in shares. The taxpayer challenged this action, ultimately leading to the ITAT’s intervention.
In a recent ruling, the Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of ₹8.36 lakh made by the AO under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee, Surabi Agarwal, working in the real estate business, had filed her income tax return(ITR) for the AY 2014-15, declaring a total income of ₹6.64 lakhs under the head of “Business Income” and “other sources”. The case was then selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ₹8.6 Lakhs to her income for cash payments made in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act. These payments were linked to two immovable property purchases in which parts of the transactions were cash.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 did not apply to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds received by the assessee and found that the foundation had proven the identity of the donor, the genuineness of the transaction, and obtained the necessary CSR approval, making the addition unjustified.
Madhu Silica Foundation,appellant-assessee, filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2022-23, declaring “Nil” income. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the appellant received Rs. 9.6 crore in March 2022 from Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd., reportedly for CSR activities.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot question the creditworthiness of creditors when the assessee’s books of account and supporting evidence clearly establish the source, identity, and repayment of funds.
F.M. Amin Co. (Dashrath), the assessee, a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum engaged in the sale of petrol, diesel, and CNG, filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 24,43,860. The income tax return was selected for scrutiny and the assessing officer (AO) added unsecured loans totaling Rs. 23,50,000 to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Agra Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] order and directed for fresh adjudication regarding the addition of ₹20.44 lakh as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.
Shuchi Varshney,appellant-assessee, filed a return of income showing Rs.3,31,900/- on 27.03.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to cash deposits during the demonetization period, as reported under Specified Financial Transactions(SFT). The assessee deposited Rs.20,44,000/- in demonetized currency in her bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Aligarh. The assessee claimed the cash came from her earnings, marriage gifts, and an advance for land purchase.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the addition of Rs. 6.99 crore presumptive addition on share transfer due to lack of evidence.
Here Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [ CIT( A ) ] and one of the grounds raised by the assessee was in relation to the deletion of the addition of short-term capital gain on account of the transfer of shares of Rs. 6,99,65,000.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of the addition on account of business income of Rs. 9.42 crore as WIP did not belong to the assessee.
Here Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [ CIT( A ) ], which deleted the addition made by the assessee on account of business income of Rs. 9.42 crores.
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an addition of ₹ 62 Lakhs on the assessee based on alleged dissimilarities in the amount of cash recorded in the audit books and cash found during scrutiny.
The assessee, Taiyab Khan, is a medical professional and, In a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, physical cash of ₹13 Lakhs was found. In contrast, the cash balance as per books of accounts showed negative cash of ₹11 lakhs. Similarly, the audited books of accounts showed a cash balance of ₹75 Lakhs from all his four businesses.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed an ex parte order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to the assessee did not receive the income tax hearing notice and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Sri Selvalakshmi Feeds & Farms, the assessee, had appealed against the order issued by the CIT(A) after being aggrieved by an ex parte decision. The CIT(A) had passed the order following the assessee’s non-appearance for hearings scheduled on February 13, 2024, and February 26, 2024.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed a fresh hearing in a case involving unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period citing assessing officer (AO) had issued notices to an inactive email ID.
Mr. Krishnan Gopikrishnan, the assessee, challenged the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO had added Rs. 24,74,680 to his income, including Rs. 14,56,000 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash deposits, and Rs. 10,56,000 from other unexplained sources, based on limited hearings.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 74-day delay in filing an appeal by Mohandoss Jayaprakash citing non-compliance caused by serious illness and lack of access to a computer and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A).
Mohandoss Jayaprakash, the assessee, is an individual residing in Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram District, and filed an appeal for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 74 days supported by an affidavit explaining that the delay was caused by serious illness which left the assessee bedridden and unable to respond to notices from the tax authorities.
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 64-day delay in filing an appeal, citing the illness of the company’s long-serving auditor, who had been handling its tax matters for over 40 years as a valid reason for the delay.
Al-Ameen International Ltd., the assessee, had filed appeals for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The assessee was unaware of the income tax notices because the company’s CA always handled this kind of matter.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act,1961 on the cessation of liabilities. The revenue-appellant challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 29.11.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15.
In this case,Shreekrishan Goswami,respondent-assessee,had been asked during assessment proceedings to furnish details of “Sundry Creditors” amounting to ₹80,07,153.55 as reflected in the balance sheet. The respondent submitted the required details.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) involving additions of Rs. 91,26,731 as long-term capital gains and Rs. 1,57,610 under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 for an unsecured loan.
Germinda Pvt. Ltd,appellant-assessee,filed its return for A/Y 2012-13, reporting no income. During scrutiny, the appellant was asked to provide details of a property sold but failed to submit the required documents. As a result, the AO added Rs. 91,26,731 as long-term capital gains and Rs. 1,57,610 under Section 68 for an unsecured loan. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] due to the lack of response.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the ₹2.27 crore addition made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961 concerning unexplained cash deposits.
The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order of CIT(A) dated 06.08.2024 under section 250 of the Act. In this case,Chiranjeet Kundu,respondent-assessee,was assessed by the AO on 27.11.2019, who noted large cash deposits in bank accounts during the demonetization period. Since the assessee did not provide the required books of accounts, the AO could not verify these deposits and added Rs. 2,27,98,730 under section 69A of the Act.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside an ex-parte order after technical glitches led to non-compliance by the assessee.
The issue in this case pertains to the assessee appealing against the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].The CIT(A) had issued nine notices during the appellate proceedings, which went unanswered by the company for the assessment year ( AY ) 2017-18.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) after finding that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 was invalid due to the AO’s failure to obtain prior approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCCIT ), as required under section 151 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Arnab Kumar Goswami, appellant-assessee, declared an income of Rs. 3,52,310/- for the assessment year. He purchased a property at Rajarhat for Rs. 25,00,000/-, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 35,36,655/-. The difference of Rs. 10,36,655/- was shared between the assessee and his spouse, with each receiving Rs. 5,18,327/-. The AO added Rs. 5,18,327/- to the assessee’s income under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act.
In a recent ruling, the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the ex-parte order regarding addition on cash deposits of Rs. 33 lakhs by noticing a clear violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
In this case, the assessee, K. Adirajan, has approached the ITAT against the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT(A ) ], which confirmed the addition on cash deposits of Rs. 33 lakhs under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered the Income Tax matter re-adjudication due to non-consideration of demonetization period evidence.
In this case, the assessee appealed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2019–20.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the appeal of the assessee regarding the penalty levy under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14, as withdrawn under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF,appellant-assessee, appealed against the 09.05.2024 order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], which upheld a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14. The assessee challenged the ₹14,48,660 penalty under Section 271(1)(c), arguing it was unjustified as all facts were disclosed, the explanation was bona fide, and the additional income was voluntarily disclosed before receiving reasons for reopening the assessment.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) rules that Section 68 of Income Tax ACt, 1961 cannot be invoked for non-appearance before the Assessing Officer ( AO ) when genuineness is established through documents.
The revenue appellant appealed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s order dated 05.07.2023 for AY 2012-13, challenging the deletion of ₹3,55,65,468 added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.In this case,Amodini Vyapar Pvt . Ltd,respondent-assessee, filed its return showing an income of ₹18,400, and the case was taken up for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection ( CASS ).
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the revenue’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], stating that the tax effect in this case was below the revised threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) Circular No. 9/2024.
The revenue-appellant challenged the order passed by CIT(A), dated 21.03.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Act. In this case,Kamlapati Properties Pvt. Ltd,respondent-assessee, referred to CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which increased the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department to reduce litigation.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 24-day delay in filing Form 10B due to technical issues and granted exemption under section 11 of Income Tax Act,1961.
Kaydee Foundation, appellant-assessee, filed its return under section 139 ( 4A ) and submitted the auditor’s report in Form No. 10B on the same day. The Assessing Officer(AO) rejected the exemption under section 11 due to a delay in filing the report. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)], but the appeal was dismissed on the same grounds.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh order due to the assessee’s lack of opportunity to present evidence.
Prakash Bhalotia ,appellant-assessee, filed his return for AY 2017-18 with a total income of Rs. 7,24,055/-. His case was selected for scrutiny to examine cash deposits made during demonetization. Despite receiving notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), he failed to respond.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case back to the AO, stating that the order made by tax authorities was taken Ex-parte, which violated the principles of natural justice.
The assessee, Dhirubhai BabuBhai Modi, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee filed his original return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring a total income of ₹(-) 44 Lakhs.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has given a significant reprieve to an assessee who had been accused of making unexplained cash deposits. The ITAT has remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh adjudication, citing the benefit of doubt in favor of the assessee.
The case pertains to the assessment year 2011-12, where the assessee, Nitrangan Singh Gwal, was accused of making a cash deposit of Rs. 45,42,005 in his savings bank account with ICICI Bank Limited, Mirzapur. The AO had initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and had issued a notice under section 148 of the Act.
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Agra Bench has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to reconsider the quantum addition.
Bhav Singh, appellant-assessee, also an insurance agent, who was assessed to tax for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 18,29,000 on account of cash deposits in the assessee’s Savings Bank account, invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] decision, confirming the genuineness of ₹2.06 crore share capital received, and deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 20.05.2024 for the AY 2012-13 passed by the CIT(A).In this case Bhawani Alumina Products Pvt. Ltd,respondent-assessee engaged in manufacturing aluminum goods, had filed its return declaring an income of ₹54,22,660/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer(AO) treated ₹2,06,50,000/- received as share capital as bogus and added it under section 68 of the Act, also initiating penalty proceedings.
Subscribe to Taxscan Premium for latest Job updates on WhatsApp. Stay informed and advance your career with us
