This is the weekly round of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that were published at Taxscan.in from February 24, 2024 to March 1, 2024 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently ruled in favour of businesses with a gross turnover not exceeding Rs. 250 Crores, allowing them to avail a concessional tax rate of 25%.
The coram of Manomohandas ( Judicial member ) and Manjunatha G. ( Accountant member) concluded that after excluding these three specific items, the gross turnover or gross receipts of the assessee, inclduing other income, did not surpass Rs. 250 Crores. Therefore, the bench determined that the assessee has accurately calculated their tax liability by applying the 25% concessional rate of tax.
In a recent ruling the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that no exclusion of comparable if data available on records can be Reasonably Extrapolated
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising S. Rifafur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) observed that the company was deemed functionally comparable in both preceding and subsequent assessment years; there appears to be no justifiable reason to reject it based on functional disparities in the current assessment year. Therefore, the said company was directed to be included in the list of comparable.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that receipts from sale of online videos to Indian clients is not taxable as royalty under India – USA DTAA.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that subscription revenue received by the assessee is not taxable as ‘Royalty’ in the hands of the assessee under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) dismissed the ex-parte order on grounds of failure to comply with the CIT(A)’s intimations, despite being given adequate opportunity.
Tribunal consisting , Manish Borad ( Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sharma ( Judicial member ) observed that the appellant claimed that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without affording proper reasons or opportunities to the assessee.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ),held that deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act could not be allowed without filing return of income.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and George George K, Vice President held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that income from providing credit facilities to nominal members of cooperative society are eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Income Tax Act,1961.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Chandra Poojari, ( Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that income from providing credit facilities to nominal members of cooperative society are eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Income Tax Act,1961.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), observed that the delay in filing appeal before the lower authorities happened due to the mistake of assessee counsel. Therefore the bench directed re-adjudication.
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 in respect of delay in filing appeal before the lower authorities happened due to the mistake of assessee counsel.
Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), ruled that in a cases where a declaration under Section 194C(6) and a PAN are received from payees who possess a vehicle even though they are not registered owners, the legal owner is exempt from TDS under Section 194C.
Therefore the two member bench of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, ( Judicial Member ) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, ( Accountant Member ) who observed that Anyone in possession of the goods carriage, other than the registered owner, is considered the owner for the purposes of section 44AE. Since the assessee transporter’s taxes are primarily governed by section 44AE, this becomes significant when defining the term “owns” in section 194C(6).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ),Kolkata, has clarified that the credit of foreign tax cannot be denied solely for not filing Form 67 within due date of the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) under Section 139 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two member bench, comprising Rajpal Yadav ( Vice President ) and Rajesh Kumar ( Accountant Member ), noted that foreign tax to the tune of Rs. 17,72,470 was indeed deducted in the UK under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) between India and the UK, as per Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), directed radjudication on accounts of addition made under excess receipts from contracts works. The bench during the adjudication observed that the Revenue authorities have failed to examine the details of the work contracts awarded and the payment made by the Government which are relatable to various stages of work contract.
Therefore, the two member bench of Laliet Kumar, ( Judicial Member ) and R.K. Panda, ( Vice President ) directed re-adjudication on accounts addition made under Excess Receipts from Contract Works.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that penalties shall be calculated based on additions made to the income disclosed in the Income Tax Return ( ITR ) filed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Rajesh Kumar ( Accountant member ) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) observed that the penalty has to be computed on the basis of the addition made to the income of the assessee disclosed in the ITR filed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty could be either equivalent to the taxes sought to be evaded by the assessee or maximum to the extent 300 times.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed readjucation on the concerned grounds due to the lower authority’s failure to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officers ( DVO ) for assessing the fair market value of the land property.
The bench of Sanjay Garg ( Judicial member ) and Manish Borad ( Accountant member ) observed that the lower authorities ought to have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuing the fair market value of the land property. Consequently, the particular ground was directed for readjudication and the appeal was partly allowed.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not be available for expenses incurred for giving mementos to presidents and secretaries of Milk Producers Association
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and Beena Pillai, ( Judicial Member ) held that exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not be available for expenses incurred for giving mementos to presidents and secretaries of Milk Producers Association.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
