The stories on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that were published at Taxscan.in from February 9, 2024 to February 16, 2024 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that disallowance made on the basis of delayed filing of Goods and Service Tax return without vouching the exact amount of GST discharged by extended due date. Therefore the bench directed readjudication
After reviewing the submissions, two-member bench of G. D. Padmahshal, ( Accountant member ) and Partha Sarathi Choudhury, ( Judicial Member ) remanding the matter back to the file of NFAC with a direction to deal with this limited issue in accordance with aforestated law & pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed re adjudication upon the denial of deduction claimed under Section 80(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act , 1961 with regard to the interest received from cooperative banks /scheduled banks.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and George George K, ( Vice President ) directed readjudication upon the denial of deduction claimed under Section 80(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to the interest received from cooperative banks /scheduled banks.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that receipts from software subscription payments training and professional fees was not taxable in India as Fee For Technical Service( FTS ) under India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements ( DTAA ).
The two-member bench of Dr. B.R.R. Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Kul Bharat, ( Judicial Member ) held that, professional and training services rendered by the assessee does not fall within the definition of FTS both under the Income Tax Act as well as under the DTAA .
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that non deduction of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Chandra Poojari ( Accountant member ) and Madhumita Roy ( Judicial member ) noted that the only allegation made was regarding the non-deduction of TDS under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to a proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, nullified the reassessment order issued in this case based on this primary issue, particularly considering the proposed disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In the case of Reliance Power Ltd, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that disallowance under section 14 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable only on Investments that yielded Exempt Income. The ITAT observed that while working out disallowance under section 14 A of administrative expenses under rule 8D (2) (iii) of the act, the assessing officer could have been made only after taking only those investments that have yielded exempt income.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM and Shri Rahul Chaudhary, JM observed that when the assessee does not have any exempt income during the year, the assessee did not claim any exemption and therefore there cannot be any disallowance under section 14 A of the act. Further, the amendment made to the Income Tax Act is also applicable with effect from 1 April 2022. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and allowed the appeal of the assessee, however, there is no exempt income during the year, and such an issue becomes academic.
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directs readjudication on account of failure to substantiate genuineness of source of investment with respect to purchase of immovable property
After observing the submissions of both parties the single -member bench Of R.S. Syal, ( Vice President ) directs readjudication on account of failure to substantiate genuineness of source of investment with respect to purchase of immovable property . Bhuvanesh V. Kankani counsel appeared for assessee and Sourabh Nayak , counsel appeared for revenue.
In a recent judgement, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from any other co-operative bank is allowable as a deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM and Shri Rahul Chaudhary, JM observed that any income by way of interest or dividend derived by the cooperative society from its investment with any other cooperative society is also allowable as deduction fully under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the facts are clear that assessee is a co-operative society and co-operative banks are also cooperative societies.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to the non-filing of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a period spanning eight years.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manomohan Das ( Judicial member ) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal ( Accountant member ) concluded that there was no sufficient cause with the assesse seeking condonation of inordinate delay of more than 8 years before first appellate authority.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be made without examining source of cash deposit
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising George George K ( Vice President ) observed that an addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be made without scrutinizing the source of the cash deposit. Consequently, for the limited purpose of scrutinizing the cash deposit’s source, the matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer. The assesse was instructed to provide evidence of the identity/source of the cash deposit and must satisfy the AO regarding the conditions stipulated under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), upheld the revision order and held that no enquiries was made by AO in respect of genuineness of receipts of the donation issued to the political party for confirming the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Annapurna Gupta, ( Accountant member ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member )held that the assessing officer simply allowed the claim of deduction of donation by the assessee, without carrying out the necessary enquiries Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. And upheld the revision order.
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated on information wings with respect to accommodation entry.
The single-member bench of G. D. Padmahshali, ( Accountant member ) held that notice u/s 148 of the Act was validly issued. Therefore the bench dismissed the ground of appeal filed by the assessee.
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), while upholding the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the assessee failed due to the absence of cogent material to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of share application /subscription transaction.
The single-member bench of G. D. Padmahshali ( Accountant member ) upheld the addition made by the assessing officer and observed that the assessee has failed due to absence of cogent material to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of share application /subscription transaction.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) disallowed deduction under Section 80P (2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that interest income received from cooperative banks cannot be considered equivalent to interest received from a cooperative society.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising George George k ( Vice President ) concluded that the assessee cannot claim deductions under Sections 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for interest income received from scheduled banks/cooperative banks.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that Pure Charity Performance of Activity without Consideration is not envisioned under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as General Public Utility ( GPU ) object
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Gangan Goyal ( Accountant member ) and Amit Shukla ( Judicial member ) observed that the concept of pure charity, the performance of an activity without consideration was not envisioned under the Act, however, as long as GPUs object involves activities which also generates profits, it can be granted exemption provided the quantitative limit under second proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for receipts from such profits, was adhered to
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the registration of the trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the delay in filing Form 10A.
Hence, The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Manjunatha G ( Accountant member ) and Mahavir Singh ( Vice President ) set aside the appeal and the matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT (E) who will allow assessee to file application in form No. 10A along with other required details and the CIT (E) will examine entire aspect relating to registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as under Section 80G of the Act and then will decide the appeal accordingly.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that deduction under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to interest earned on Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) from Bank of Baroda
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Suchithra Kamble ( Judicial member ) Regarding the interest earned from Bank of Baroda, expenses incurred for earning interest income on Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) from Bank of Baroda should be allowed, but deduction under Section 80P of the Act will not be applicable to the interest earned on the FDR from Bank of Baroda. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), while deleting the addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that capital gain arising on sale of shares could not be regarded as sham profit.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Pradip Kumar Kedia, ( Accountant member ) and Challa Nagendra Prasad ( Judicial Member ) held that capital gains arising on sale of shares cannot be regarded as sham profit and consequently, additions under section 69A of the Act is not justified. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that extension of due date under Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) circular is Dependent upon Quantification of Interest under Section 234 of the Income Tax Act , 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rama Kanta ( Vice President ) and K.Narasimha Chary ( Judicial member ) observed that the first clarification provided in the circular lacks clarity regarding the specific date for assessing the interest liability under section 234A of the Income Tax Act , 1961.
The Rajkot bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that no invocation of Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as assessee cannot be termed “assessee in default” for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS )
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Waseem Ahammad ( Accountant member ) and Siddartha Nautiyal ( Judicial member ) observed that the Department had not analyzed this aspect/contention of the assessee that since the assessee had already deducted taxes at source at appropriate rates, there was no question of invoking the provisions of Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since the assessee could not be held to be an “assessee in default” for non-deduction of TDS, when the assessee had already deducted taxes at source at appropriate rates.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that debt does not cease to exist when there was no writing in books of account, no Cessation of Liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Madhumitha Roy ( Judicial member ) and Chandra poojari ( Accountant member ) observed that in the assessment year under consideration, this amount cannot be considered as cessation liability under Section 41(1) ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This ground of appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that goodwill was an intangible asset, depreciation allowable under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rama Kanta ( Vice President ) and N.K.Narasimha Chary ( Judicial member ) concluded that the denial of the deduction claim for depreciation on goodwill by the authorities below cannot be justified. Therefore, the bench observed that this disallowance should be overturned, and the claim for deduction of depreciation on goodwill should be accepted. Consequently, the grounds of appeal are allowed.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing them to produce bills and vouchers related to the purchase and sale of gold in response to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Laliet Kumar ( Judicial member ) and R.K. Panda ( Vice President ) concluded that the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, an appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that full value of consideration or cost of investment cannot be substituted by fair market value except within purview of Section 50 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Shamim Yahaya ( Accountant member ) and Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial member ) observed that the agreed consideration stated in the sale documents or any other instrument should be considered as the “full value of consideration” or “cost of investment”. Substitution of the fair market value is only permissible in cases falling within the scope of Section 50C and Section 56(l)(vi)/(vii), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where the circle rate exceeds the recorded transaction value. However, in this instance, the consideration in registered conveyance deeds consistently exceeds the circle rate valuation.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that services provided to Jet Airways and Jet Lite in Malaysia head in the office of resident Indian companies are taxable in India .
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of G.S. Pannu, ( Vice President ) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, ( Judicial Member ) held that services provided to Jet Airways and Jet Lite in Malaysia head in the office of resident Indian companies are taxable in India.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that receipts from sale of software license is not royalty under Article 12(3) of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of G.S. Pannu, ( Vice President ) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, ( Judicial Member ) by determining the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT held that software license and receipts from provisions of services cannot be assessed as royalty/FTS in the hands of the assessee.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) comprising Amit Shukla ( Judicial Member ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant Member ) while deleting the addition held that Income from transfer of channels being an asset outside India should not be taxable under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Accordingly the ITAT bench held that the income arising out of the transfer of STAR Vijay channel, being an asset outside India by the SARF to VTPL will not fall within the provisions of section 9(1)(i) and hence not taxable in India.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no taxability arose as there was no escapement of income on repatriating Rs.203.56 Cr. arising from redemption of non-convertible debentures ( NCDs ).
A two-member bench comprising Dr B R R Kumar, Accountant Member and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member observed that the assessee has only repatriated the amounts invested in the earlier years and hence, no taxability arises during the year. In the case of the assessee company, neither has any income accrued or arisen or is deemed to accrue or arise under that for the assessment year 2017-18 nor any claim has been under any DTAA. The Assessing Office has not examined the relevant records before them wherein the interest earned has been duly offered to tax.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that taxpayers can be allowed to furnish critical additional evidence before completing an assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am observed that the additional evidence so submitted is critical and germane for deciding the matter under consideration and given that the assessment has been completed under section 144, the assessee deserves to be allowed an opportunity to furnish the necessary explanation and documentation in support of its claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )observed that the Income Tax Addition was upheld without Application of Mind and deleted the addition. It was viewed that the authorities below have again passed the very same order without proper application of mind
A single-member bench comprising of Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member viewed that the authorities below have again passed the very same order without proper application of mind. The Tribunal set-aside the order of the authorities below and deleted the addition.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the annual letting value of unsold flats cannot be added under section 22 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of the annual let-out value ( ALV ) of the unsold flats.
A two-member bench comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member observed that the annual value of unsold flats held as stock in trade has to be considered as per the amendment in the Finance Act 2017 under section 23(5) of the Act is applicable from A.Y 2018-19. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of the annual let-out value ( ALV ) of the unsold flats and allowed the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that voluntary disallowance of an expense under section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 is not a base to treat a taxpayer as ‘assessee in default’.
A two-member bench comprising Shri M Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member held that the assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’ for mere book entries passed within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act and consequentially interest under section 201(1A) is also directed to be deleted.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the trust cannot be barred from getting the benefit of income tax deduction because of not opted for it previously.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member viewed that taking the reasonable construction of the said provision, the assessee is well within the prescribed limitation period to apply for the final approval Under section 80G(5) of the Act.
The Delhi Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), while granting relief to the Oravel Stays Private Limited, the company which runs OYO Rooms, has ruled that the company is not obligated to pay Tax Deduction at Source ( TDS ) on Minimum Guarantees Paid to Hotels. The ITAT ruled against the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,59,584 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to minimum guarantee expense
The two-member bench of Khul Bharat (Judicial Member) and N. K. Billaiya (Technical member) observed that “The contention of the ld. DR that in furtherance of its business objectives/model, the assessee is providing service, cannot be accepted as neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) have invoked the relevant provisions of the Act applicable for provisions of service. On the facts of the case, we hold that section 194C of the Act is not applicable.”
In a recent case, the Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that there is no requirement for commencement of activity for registration if trusts are already engaged in charitable activity.
A two-member bench comprising of Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Dr Dipak P Ripote, Accountant Member observed that “However, the CIT(E) has not discussed whether the Assessee fulfils all other conditions mentioned in the section as he rejected it on technical ground. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, we hold that the Assessee had made the application in form 10AB within the prescribed time limit and hence it is a valid application.”
The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the profit element in unexplained sales is to be treated under undisclosed income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT observed that CIT(A) has failed to give the benefit of the income surrendered by the assessee voluntarily against the addition confirmed by him on account of unaccounted sales.
A two-member bench comprising Smt Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Smt Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member viewed that there is no merit in the contentions of the DR that the CIT(A) ought to have applied a net profit of 12.5% in the present case.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
