The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the sales commission payments made by the assessee, for the assessment year ( AY ) 2016-17. This conclusion led to the ruling that the assessee was not obligated to deduct Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) on these payments.
The two-member bench, consisting of George George K ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ), determined that since the payments were not classified as FTS, the respondent-assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer’s disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was invalid, thus ruling in favor of the assessee.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) affirmed the deductibility of Employee Stock Option Plan ( ESOP ) expenses as legitimate business expenditures under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member bench, consisting of George George K ( Vice President ) and Padmavathy S ( Accountant Member ), ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the disallowance of ESOP expenses was unwarranted and should be deleted.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reversed the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) additions and upheld the legitimacy of long-term capital gains reported by an individual assessee, for the assessment year(AY) 2014-15.
It upheld the CIT(A)’s view on natural justice, stating that the statements made were not used to support the additions, thus no violation occurred. The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deeming the transactions legitimate and compliant with the Income Tax Act. It partly allowed the appeal, resulting in the deletion of additions and the recognition of the claimed long-term capital gains.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the notional interest in absence of proof to treat share application money in hands of overseas Associated Enterprises ( AE ) as ‘loan’.
Since no inquiry was conducted seeking any information regarding delay in allotment of shares to AE, from the SAIF Zone Authority, the ITAT concluded that delay in allotment of shares cannot be attributed to assessee and deleted the transfer pricing addition.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest on delayed customs duty was deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) concluded that the interest on the delayed customs duty was deductible under Section 37 of the Act and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) criticized revenue for its unnecessary appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision regarding income tax exemption under Section 26AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the assessing officer had already accepted the claim and direction.
The tribunal noted that there was no substantial difference in facts between the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18, where similar exemptions were granted. The tribunal criticized that the revenue appeal was filed after the AO had already accepted the exemption, indicating a lack of coordination or due diligence within the Revenue departments. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal as being “infructuous” since the AO had already accepted the exemption in question.
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the addition of short-term capital gains ( STCG ) after the assessing officer failed to consult a valuation officer to verify the fair market value, as required under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act when the taxpayer challenged the assessed value.
The tribunal agreed with the assessee that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were incorrectly applied due to the dates of agreements and transactions. The tribunal referenced the previous ruling in ITO Vs. M/s. Aditya Narain Verma which stressed the need for proper valuation assessments before making additions. Therefore, the tribunal invalidated the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions of Rs.2,14,22,053 and Rs. 49,11,947. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), denied re-adjudication, stating that remanding decades-old assessment appeals to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) would be impractical due to the unavailability of documents and personal verifications.
The ITAT bench, comprising of Renu Jauhari ( Accountant Member ) and Beena Pillai ( Judicial Mmeber ) restricted the addition to 0.15% of the deposits made in the bank account of the assessee and thus partly allowed the appeal.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee regarding the disallowance of deductions claimed under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The ITAT bench, after referring the precedent, Smt. Harleen Kaur Bhatia vs. PCIT in ITA No. 150/Ind/2019, directed AO to delate the impugned addition. The bench comprising of Raj Kumar Chauhan ( Judicial Membar ) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya ( Accountant Member ) allowed both the appeals filed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of deemed income to the trust, citing the CBDT’s extension of the deadline, which allowed for the belated filing of Form 10B.
The bench restored the case back to the bench of CIT(A) for deciding denovo on merit after considering Circular No. 20/2022 of the CBDT and submissions and documents filed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) nullified the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to procedural lapses on the part of the department.
The Mumbai ITAT bench, comprising of Raj Kumar Chauhan ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya ( Accountant Member), held that the notices issues under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the procedure adopted by the department was illegal and thus directed to the impugned notices and quashes the resultant assessment order.
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that no additions were allowed in completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A or 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without incriminating material found during the search.
The tribunal noted that no assessments were pending at the time of the search, placing the case in the category of “completed/unabated assessments.” The tribunal further observed that both parties agreed on the legal standing as clarified by recent Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the tribunal deleted the additions made for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Bangalore provided relief to a Canara Bank employee and national hockey player, by setting aside income additions totaling Rs. 9.84 lakh.
After hearing both sides, the ITAT two member bench of Mr Laxmi Prasad Sahu and Mr Prakash Chand Yadav found the evidence satisfactory, noting that the assessee had no additional income sources and no indications of substantial investments. The Tribunal accepted that the deposits stemmed from previous cash withdrawals and thus ruled that the Rs. 9.84 lakh should not be counted as unexplained income, favoring the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 25.93 lakh categorized as a “deemed dividend” under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act due to the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) failure to verify whether the transaction constituted an actual loan or merely a Journal entry in shareholder’s account.
The tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) verified the claim regarding the nature of the transactions. The tribunal highlighted that the tax authorities did not sufficiently assess whether the transaction constituted an actual loan or merely a book entry.Therefore, the tribunal set aside CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter to the AO to verify the assessee’s claim. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[ CIT(A) ] regarding unsecured loans for the assessment year (AY) 2015-2016, citing a lack of incriminating evidence.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek (Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member) upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue’s ground regarding the addition under Section 68 of the Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) confirmed the addition and penalty on unexplained transactions of Rs. 83.4 lakhs due to the assessee’s repeated non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and assessing officer (AO) without any justifiable cause.
Therefore, the tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to include the sum of Rs. 83,45,000 as the assessee’s taxable income for the relevant assessment year and the penalty of Rs. 24,03,510 due to the failure to disclose the financial transactions properly.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that rejecting records solely due to handwritten form is unjust without considering the taxpayer’s explanation and business context.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order, which is required under the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh evaluation.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that no additions are permitted under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 without incriminating material found during a search.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek(Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya(Accountant Member) quashed the assessment order due to the absence of incriminating evidence obtained in the search, rendering further examination of merits unnecessary. In conclusion the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gains arising from the sale of long-term capital assets shall be taxable at a rate of 20% under Section 112 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Ultimately, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that capital gains arising from the sale of long-term capital assets should be taxable at the rate of 20% under Section 112 of the Act.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the denial of a fair hearing.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek ( Judicial Member ) and S Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case, noting that proper verification of the additions made was crucial. In conclusion the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Mumbai granted Section 54F exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) to an assessee/ appellant, Mr. Nakul Aggarwal, recognizing that his purchase of one residential house with modifications of two adjacent properties amounts to a single residential house.
In result, in its decision, the ITAT instructed the ACIT to grant full exemption under section 54F of the tax statute, allowing the assessee’s appeal and dismissing the revenue’s cross-appeal.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) “SMC” Bench in Mumbai, ruled that determinate beneficiaries should be taxed as “Individual” and not as “Association Of Persons” at a marginal rate.
Consequently, the ITAT directed the AO to apply individual tax rates for the estate of Mr. Dossa. The Tribunal pronounced its decision on October 14, 2024, in the open court, granting relief to the appellant and instructing that the excessive tax and interest charges be removed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that eligibility conditions for claiming Foreign Tax Credit ( FTC ) under the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) were met by the withholding of tax by the source country, Japan.
The two member bench comprising Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) held that the assessee was entitled to foreign tax credits ( FTC ) for taxes withheld in Japan and the other mentioned jurisdictions. Consequently, the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Mumbai recently ruled that income from the sale of white button mushrooms cultivated indoors should be classified as “agricultural income” under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act ( ITA ), exempting it from income tax and not as “Business Income”.
Thus, the ITAT concluded that the assessee’s activities constituted agricultural operations, with income from the cultivation and sale of mushrooms qualifying as agricultural income. Accordingly, the income claimed under Section 10(1) of the tax statute was deemed exempt, and the appeal was allowed in the assessee’s favor.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellatte Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition made by AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, as it was solely based on the third-party evidence, without considering the submissions made by the assessee.
The ITAT bench observed that AO has clearly ignored the information submitted by the assessee and unilaterally made an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, solely on the basis of a statement provided by a third party, discrediting the evidence furnished by the assessee. The bench was of the opinion that the statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt cannot be used as reliable evidence. The bench, comprising Girish Agarwal ( Accountant Member ) and Pavan Kumar Gadale ( Judicial Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to reassess cash deposits of almost Rs 1 crore.
The bench also directed the appellant to file all necessary documents explaining the source of cash deposits of Rs. 96,00,000 , including relevant financial statements, bank statements, ledger accounts, and ITR to substantiate the availability of cash in hand amounting to Rs. 52,47,711 as of 01-04-2015.
In a recent judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Mumbai ruled in favor of an assessee, Ashok Jasraj Jain, dismissing an appeal by the Revenue Department that questioned the legitimacy of loans the assessee received for a property purchase in the 2011-12 assessment year, observing “no reason to doubt the source of funds” the assessee had used as loans in bank statement.
Thus, the tribunal quashed the assessment, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and allowing the assessee’s cross-objection, asserting that the reasons for reopening the case were based on “certain presumptions” without concrete material evidence.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai, recently in a judgment, upheld the deletion of a ₹1.5 crore addition initially imposed on one assessee/appellant, Amal Corporation, as it was observed that the addition was made with sole reliance on an investigative report without specific evidence to substantiate the claims against the assessee, and hence the addition could not be justified.
Upon further appeal by the Revenue, the ITAT reaffirmed the CIT(A)’s decision. The Tribunal bench of Mr Amit Shukla and Mr Renu Jauhri observed that while an investigation report might justify further inquiries, it cannot alone substantiate income additions without corresponding evidence implicating the taxpayer. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to demonstrate that the assessee’s loans were fraudulent or that funds from the Jain group directly benefited the company. Since the assessee had fulfilled its evidentiary obligations and established the legitimacy of its financial sources, the ITAT ruled that the deletion of the addition was appropriate. In result, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the action of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) in initiating revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Assessing Officer ( AO ) had taken a legally plausible view.
The ITAT bench observed that the view taken by the AO was a legally plausible view, and thus the PCIT has erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The bench, comprising of Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Memeber ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member), allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) mandated by Punjab National Bank ( PNB ) as a financing requirement for an infrastructure project, were a business necessity.
The tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in CIT v. Shah Alloys Ltd. and a similar ITAT decision in Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., where interest from FDRs linked to business loans was treated as business income. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the Income Tax notice, which was sent to the Email ID of the tax consultant of the taxpayer, in which he failed to inform the assessee about the notices.
The ITAT bench, comprising of Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for de novo adjudication concerning alleged bogus purchases by the assessee, allowing the consideration of additional evidence.
The two-member bench, consisting of Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication, which included evaluating the new evidence presented. The issue of deduction under Section 80-IA was also left open for reconsideration if needed. Consequently, the cross-appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT) granted relief to ASAN Memorial Association, allowing its statutory deduction claim under Section 11(1)(a) of Income Tax Act,1961 despite a filing error in the income tax return.
The two member bench comprising Mahavir Singh(Vice President) and Jagadish(Accountant Member) set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and CPC, instructing the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the deduction under Section 11(1)(a). In conclusion,the appeal was subsequently allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessee, on account of the timely submission of Form 10IC and the Centralized Processing Centre’s ( CPC ) acknowledgment of the election for the reduced rate.
The two member bench comprising Aby.T.Varkey(Judicial Member) and Jagadish(Accountant) determined that the CIT(A) was incorrect in stating that the assessee had not opted for the concessional rate and directed the Assessing Officer(AO) to compute the tax accordingly. In conclusion,the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai Bench Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for a fresh review, citing procedural deficiencies in the assessment order dated 16.03.2024 for the assessment year ( AY ) 2017-18.
The two member bench comprising Aby T Varkey ( Judicial Member ) and Amitabh Shukla ( Accountant Member ) remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority for fresh evaluation, allowing the appellant to submit necessary documents and comply with notices. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the declaimed by the assessee under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the assessee was able to establish a nexus between property sale advance and the National Highway Authority of India ( NHAI ) bond investment.
The ITAT comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act,1961 since the assessee has been above to establish the direct nexus between the advance so received by the assessee towards the sale of property and the investment made by the assessee in NHAI Bonds.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) acceptance of the assessee’s bad debt write-off claim, determining that there was no error in the AO’s assessment.
The two member bench comprising Aby T. Varkey ( Judicial Member ) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ) concluded that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and had valid grounds for accepting the appellant-assessee’s claim for bad debts. As a result it determined that the AO’s order was not erroneous and did not prejudice the Revenue’s interests. Consequently, the PCIT’s use of section 263 to question this aspect of the assessment was found to be unwarranted, and the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of has directed a re-adjudication after dismissing an appeal filed offline without a hearing.
The ITAT bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ), set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed a fresh hearing, allowing the assessee to rectify procedural defects and ensuring his appeal is heard based on its merits.
The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while adjudging an Income Tax Appeal held that an Income Tax Assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) has to be both, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue to warrant proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
However, the Bench observed that it has been proved that the Assessee has already capitalized the disputed expenses, the same being reflected in their books of accounts without claiming the benefit of deduction of the impugned expenses in their Profit and Loss (P&L) Account. In such an event, even if the Order by the AO is deemed erroneous, it cannot be held ‘Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue’
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] decision granting exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act,1961 despite the return being filed using ITR-6. It emphasized consistency in tax treatment across assessment years, noting that similar circumstances in prior years had resulted in granted exemptions.
The two member bench comprising SS Viswanethra Ravi(Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla(Accountant Member) sustained the CIT(A)’s order, dismissing all grounds of appeal raised by the revenue, as the merits of other additions became academic due to the upheld exemption. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
