This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reported at Taxscan from 30 November 2024 to 6 December 2024.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh consideration and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the assessee for non-compliance with notices.
The appellate tribunal noted the assessee’s repeated non-compliance despite receiving four notices from the CIT(A) and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000, to be paid within two weeks. The CIT(A) was instructed to proceed only after verifying the payment. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restores the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh assessment on the carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, citing incomplete evaluation of the merger impact.
Though the assessee’s Writ Petition was dismissed, the order was stayed, and the appeal was admitted. The tribunal found that the AO had not given the assessee a proper opportunity before making the additions. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the bench sent the case back to the AO, instructing them to wait for the Madras High Court’s decision and give the assessee a chance to be heard. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the penalty notice as the assessing officer issued it without specifying the offense whether it was concealment of income or inaccurate particulars which is mandatory under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows which held that penalty notices must specify the charge against the assessee. The tribunal also observed the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations due to the vagueness of the notice. So, the tribunal quashed the penalty order issued by the AO and CIT(A)’ order. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard would not cause prejudice to the revenue, and remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication.
The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) decided that giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard would not cause prejudice to the revenue. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after issuing proper notice to the assessee. The assessee was instructed to comply with the notices without requesting unnecessary adjournments. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication on the Rs. 8.82 lakh Fixed Deposit ( FD ) investment, due to the failure to consider evidence of the source from the Fixed Deposit/Overdraft ( FD/OD ) account.
However, the CIT(A) failed to consider this evidence and confirmed the addition. The appellate tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-evaluation, giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Lucknow bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and condoned the 2564-day delay in filing the appeal, as no undue benefit will be gained by not appealing against an assessment or other order passed under the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT bench also observed that the AO conducted an inquiry and took a plausible view on the issue, and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax’s ( PCIT ) invocation of revisional jurisdiction was invalid, as the assessment officer’s ( AO ) inquiry was sufficient. Therefore, the bench observed that the PCIT’s action was without jurisdiction, and the order under Section 263 was set aside. The ITAT bench, comprising Mr. Anadee Nath Misshra ( Accountant Member ) and Mr. Subhash Malguria, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered reconsideration of the rejection of the application filed under 80 G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [ CIT(E) ], citing the CBDT circular on extended deadlines.
The bench observed that the matter required a fresh consideration due to the CBDT circular and remanded the issue of the trust’s recognition to the CIT(E) to decide according to the law after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The ITAT, comprising Dr. S. Seethalakshmi ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the income tax matter as the source of creation of fixed deposits ( FD ) needed verification of land acquisition compensation.
The ITAT bench, comprising Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh ( Accountant Member ) and Mr. Anubhav Sharma ( Judicial Member ), allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes. The bench set aside the order passed by AO and also held that adequate opportunity of a hearing should be given to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore recently remanded a case pertaining to capital gains exemption claims observing that the concerned notices by the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) had been issued during the COVID-19 era and thus the Assessee was not aware of such issuance.
The two-member Bench of the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, constituted by Padmavathy S., Accountant Member and Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member considered the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case and proceeded to restore the matter to the file of the concerned AO for fresh adjudication with the direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the Assessee in the interests of natural justice and fair play.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the disallowance made by the AO as the AO presumed the expenses claimed by the assessee as ‘personal expenditures’ instead of ‘personnel expenditures’.
The ITAT bench observed that the additions made by the AO were an elementary mistake, as the AO presumed the expenses claimed by the assessee as ‘personal expenditures’ instead of ‘personnel expenditures’. The bench deleted the addition made by the AO. The ITAT bench, comprising Mr. Sudhir Kumar ( Judicial Member ), allowed the assessee to file an appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condones a 611-day delay in filing an appeal due to the assessee’s limited familiarity with the e-portal system.
In view of the above, and in the interest of substantial justice, the tribunal decided to condone the delay of 611 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was then allowed.
In a recent ruling, the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that it was impossible for the assessee to mention the renewal details obtained on 04/04/2022 in ITR-7, which was filed on 13/03/2022. The bench directed the revenue to adopt a constructive approach in ITR-7 filing.
The tribunal comprising S. Balakrishnan ( Accountant Member ) and K. Narasimha Chary ( Judicial Member ), set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO to complete the assessment by using the old registration number.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)] for fresh consideration. It imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the assessee for non-compliance with notices.
The appellate tribunal noted the assessee’s repeated non-compliance despite receiving four notices from the CIT(A) and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000, to be paid within two weeks. The CIT(A) was instructed to proceed only after verifying the payment. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT allowed the assessee’s Rs. 4,78,966 Provident Fund (PF) contribution claim, overturning the Assessing Officer (AO)’s disallowance for exceeding the 27% limit as he failed to include wages in the calculation.
The revenue sought an opportunity to revisit the issue for verification but the tribunal decline,d stating that the department should not be given a second chance to rectify its failure to verify the facts during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The tribunal deleted the entire disallowance of Rs. 4,78,966. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of cash deposits made by a jewellery business owner during the demonetization period citing the rejection of the late Income Tax Return (ITR) filing and lack of satisfactory justification
The two-member bench comprising A.D. Jain (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the income tax return filed on 23.09.2019 was invalid and could not form the basis of the assessee’s appeal. The tribunal dismissed the assessee’s appeal, upholding the addition of Rs. 12,34,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A due to the lack of a valid return and satisfactory explanation.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concluding there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or deliberate attempt to conceal the income.
The rigors of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are clearly not attracted in this case. In view thereof, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 4,56,362 was deleted. The grounds of appeal are ruled in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting an addition of Rs. 27,61,030 made for capital gains incurred in the script of Looks Health Services Limited.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice-President) and Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) noted that the issue taken up by the assessee had been squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.417/Ahd/2019 dated 08.12.2023, and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the Rs.2.44 lakh improvement cost as a deductible expense for capital gains.
The two-member bench, comprising Dr. B R R Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), ruled that the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure was not relevant at this stage. It concluded that the expenditure, aimed at making the house livable in 2007, qualified as a legitimate cost of improvement eligible for deduction from capital gains. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) canceled the 30% ad-hoc disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.78,030, made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ), due to lack of justification.
The AO did not present any evidence to suggest that any of the expenses should be disallowed. The only issue raised was the absence of a bifurcation of these expenses. However, the tribunal found that all the expense categories had been duly submitted and concluded that there was no justification for the 30% disallowance on an ad-hoc basis. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the ₹19.6 lakh addition made for AY 2018-19 under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 applying the retrospective 10% safe harbor limit introduced by a curative amendment effective from 01.04.2021.
Following these decisions, the tribunal concluded that the 10% safe harbor limit applied to the current assessment year and, accordingly, directed the deletion of the addition. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) denying registration to Bhavnagar Mandap Contractors Association under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(E) had incorrectly denied registration to the Bhavnagar Mandap Contractors Association under Section 12AA of the Act and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax -Appeals [CIT-A] and remanded the case back to the CIT for fresh adjudication, holding that the assessee was given inadequate opportunity to explain the receipt of Rs. 15,50,000 from his mother.
Also the Bench noted there was no desirable level of compliance to notices fixing the case for hearing before the authorities by the appellant. The Bench set aside the impugned order and sent the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after considering the facts surrounding the impugned transaction. The appeal filed by the assessee was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
In a recent ruling, the Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act are accurate as the assessee failed to explain the source of the credit in the assessee’s account.
The two-member bench of the ITAT, consisting of Pawan Singh, the Judicial Member, and Bijayananda Pruseth, the accountant member, held that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Durga Prasad More is also clearly applicable and held that the addition of 44L under Section 68 is appropriate. The bench also held that since the addition under Section 68 is relevant, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums will be added under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. As a result, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed.
In a recent ruling, the Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act are accurate as the assessee failed to explain the source of the credit in the assessee’s account.
The two-member bench of the ITAT, consisting of Pawan Singh, the Judicial Member, and Bijayananda Pruseth, the accountant member, held that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Durga Prasad More is also clearly applicable and held that the addition of 44L under Section 68 is appropriate. The bench also held that since the addition under Section 68 is relevant, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums will be added under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. As a result, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed.
In a recent ruling, the Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was valid on reopening already closed assessment. The Tribunal upheld that both Sections 147 and 153C can be used interchangeably based on the situation.
The two member bench of the ITAT consisting of Pawan Singh ( Judicial member ) and Bijayananda Pruseth ( Accountant Member ) relied on the case of Anderson Biomet (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT and the case of Silverdale Inn (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO on which the respective courts upheld the validity of reassessment under 147 and issuance of notice under 148 was valid even when a search and seizure is being conducted on the assessee. As a result the reassessment was held valid.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the disallowance of Rs.38,18,487,holding that the assessing officer incorrectly applied Section 37 of the Income Tax Act,1961,to disallow sales promotion expenses.The Bench held that provisions for annual discount scheme and credit notes were allowable.
Regarding the first disallowance, there is no evidence suggesting that any expenses were paid in cash. Additionally, the CIT(A) did not ask the assessee to provide the remaining invoices before confirming the disallowance. Given these facts, they concluded that no disallowance is necessary for this assessment year. Therefore, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot be sustained due to lack of proper persuasion by the appellant before the authorities below.
The Tribunal comprising of Sanjay Garg ( Judicial Member ) and Sanjay Aswathy ( Accountant Member ) directed that The appellant should present all necessary documents to ensure a fair assessment. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the AO for a fresh review, with the appellant given a chance to be heard. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)deleted the addition of Rs. 52.4 lakh made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961, confirming the legitimacy of cash deposits linked to a land sale.
The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President)and Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) dismissed the Revenue’s suggestion that the money should have been deposited in fixed deposits. Based on these facts, it deleted the addition of Rs. 52,40,000 made under Section 69 of the Act.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) cancelled the addition of Rs. 3.19 lakh as undisclosed receipts, citing a timing difference in accounting between the assessee’s books and the customer’s records.
Based on this reconciliation, the tribunal concluded that no addition was justified. It set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case for de novo assessment due to his failure to comply with earlier proceedings and a dispute over the sale consideration of ancestral land under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member benches, Dr BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) considered the arguments of both parties and examined the available records. The assessee’s counsel stated that, if given an opportunity, the necessary compliance would be made before the AO to address the initial default.It also agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost, to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, with proof provided to the AO. The AO was directed to issue a notice to the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed an appeal as withdrawn after the delay in applying for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was condoned, and the approval was subsequently granted.
The two-member bench comprising T.R Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) reviewed the assessee’s submission. The Act’s approval under section 80G(5)(iii) was initially denied because the application was filed late. However, the delay was later condoned, and the approval was granted. As a result, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the principles of natural justice demand the reassessment of a case if one party was not allowed to be heard at first. The Tribunal held that this would uphold the interests of justice.
The two-member bench of the ITAT, comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth ( Accountant Member), held that the principles of Natural Justice would call for giving the assessee another opportunity to be heard, asserting that the interests of justice would be met in the case the AO re-examines the issue. The tribunal also ordered the assessee to pay the cost of Rs. 20,000 to the credit of “Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Authority” within two weeks of the order, after which the CIT(A) order will be set aside. The matter will be remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment, and The Tribunal also directed the assessee to be more diligent and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. As a result, the appeal raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently made a significant decision, overturning an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
The two-member bench of Sidhartha Nautiyal (JudicialMember) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) observed that The Gujarat High Court had previously ruled in favour of Gujarat Gas Company Ltd., stating that its activities, including altering natural gas for industrial and domestic use, qualify as manufacturing. Based on this, the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was upheld, and it was concluded that the Ld. PCIT was wrong in challenging this claim.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld Gujarat Gas Ltd.’s claim for additional depreciation, ruling that compressing natural gas qualifies as a manufacturing activity under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had been consistently treated as an industrial undertaking engaged in “manufacturing activities,” with various orders granting deductions under Section 80-IA of the Act. It referred to past decisions by the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court, which held that altering natural gas to make it suitable for industrial or domestic use qualified as a manufacturing activity.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld Gujarat Gas Ltd.’s deduction for stamp duty provision under Section 35DD, ruling that the full payment of stamp duty in two instalments, Rs. 42.86 crores, including a Rs. 25 crore provision, was not in dispute.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) noted that the assessee had provided proof of payment of Rs. 42.86 crores towards Stamp Duty expenses in two instalments in December 2016 and March 2019. The amount, including the Rs. 25 crore provision, was not disputed.
In a recent case, the Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that substantial justice should be prioritised over procedural technicalities.
The two-member bench, consisting of Pawan Singh, the Judicial Member, and Bijayananda Pruseth, the Accountant Member, approved MCDS under Section 80G(5), enabling them to continue to have their tax-exemption status. The tribunal asserted the need to balance procedural compliance and the law’s objective of promoting public welfare.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the income from the wife’s investment is not taxable at the husband’s hands and deleted the Rs. 12 lakh protective addition made by the department.
The bench observed that the protective addition of Rs. 12 lakhs made in the hand of the assessee does not survive as the wife paid the tax on the amount invested by the wife.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated an ambiguous penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The bench, comprising S. Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial Member ), set aside the impugned order and allowed the assessee to file an appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination due to the assessee’s non-compliance and lack of prejudice to the revenue.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), after considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the record, found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 144. The assessee had failed to attend the hearing and comply with the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A).
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the duplicate income tax appeal filed as it was infructuous.
The Delhi ITAT bench, comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member), dismissed AIX Connect Private Limited’s appeal as withdrawn since it was found to be a duplicate of another appeal filed by the assessee, ITA No.4523/Del/2024.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision on proportional Tax Deducted at Source(TDS) credit restriction due to income mismatch, confirming that TDS credit could only be granted for income declared in the current assessment year.
The two-member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member)agreed with the CIT(A)’s decision, which said that TDS credit could only be given for income declared in the current assessment year. The assessee’s counsel had claimed TDS of Rs.5,24,600 on receipts of Rs.5,24,60,000, which included income from AYs 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. The CIT(A) confirmed that the CPC was correct in limiting the TDS credit to the income reported in the current year.
The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] to reexamine the grounds on which the assessee is liable to pay the advance tax and the reason why the assessee had not paid such tax. The tribunal held the CIT(A)’s order to be arbitrary, as it was made without deeper examination.
The Tribunal, consisting of Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Paresh M. Joshi(Judicial Member), directed the CIT(A) to call the assessee to show why it has not paid the advance tax as payable by the assessee and to examine whether the assessee is liable to pay the advance tax as per provisions of section 249(4)(6).
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) ruled that reopening of assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not permitted without incriminating material.
The two-member bench, comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member), considered the rival contentions and reviewed the material on record. The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153A for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) allowed sales promotion expenses and discount provisions, citing their minimal impact on the company’s revenue and the proper documentation provided.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) reviewed the arguments and the case records. Considering the small proportion of the disallowed expenses to the company’s total turnover and the absence of any cash expense allegations, it found no basis for further disallowance.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the addition for alleged bogus diamond purchases, citing genuine sales and the retraction of the statement.
The two member bench comprising Dr.B.R.R. Kumar(Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) reviewed the arguments and records. It was noted that Shri Deepak Babel had initially given a statement on 05.08.2018 about accommodation entries but retracted it on 28.03.2018. The AO did not consider this retraction. The assessee received payments from M/s. Isabelle Tours N Travels and M/s. Shreeji Overseas (I) Pvt. Ltd. for diamonds sold, which indicated that the diamonds were likely purchased from M/s. Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore recently dismissed the addition of Rs.10 Crore to the Income Tax of an Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upon observation that the Revenue failed to specify whether the addition is being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The two-member Bench of the Bangalore ITAT comprising George George K., Vice President and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member, echoed the observations of the preceding CIT(A), which referred to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Whiteford India Ltd. (2013) which held that “In absence of clear finding of Assessing Officer whether assessee is guilty of concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars of income. penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained”.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) invalidated the disallowance of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act,1961, ruling that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating evidence.
The two-member bench, comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ), considered the facts and legal submissions and observed that the appellant-assessee challenged the validity of the assessment under Section 153A, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search to justify it.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance of a leave encashment provision, emphasising the requirement under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act,1961, for actual payment to claim deductions.
The two-member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) reviewed the assessee’s submissions, the AO’s findings, and the CIT(A)’s order. It also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Exide Industries Ltd., which addressed the application of Section 43B(f) for leave encashment provisions.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000 out of Rs. 16,32,609 claimed for gift, boni, and chandla expenses in 2007-08 due to insufficient documentation, despite similar claims being allowed in previous years.
The two-member benches, comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ), considered the submissions from both sides and the facts of the case. It observed that CIT(A) had applied a consistent approach, taking into account previous years and the increase in expenses for the current year.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to delete a ₹2.25 crore disallowance, finding no evidence to doubt the genuineness of transactions made by the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) reviewed the AO’s decision and the CIT(A)’s findings. It agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the AO’s disallowance was based on assumptions and lacked solid evidence. The AO did not provide proof, like cash withdrawals, to show the payments were fake.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the tax deduction for the defect liability provision, citing reasonable estimates and industry practices.
The two-member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ), following the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. JMC Projects India Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 194 of 2017), found no merit in the Revenue’s appeal about the defect liability provision.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to rectify the intimation by the Central Processing Centre because of the rejection of Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claim due to technical default.
The tribunal observed that the rejection arose from procedural shortcomings rather than the claim’s merit. The tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to rectify the CPC’s intimation and conduct a fresh assessment. The assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case of Abdulrahim Yakubbhai Gudala to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing a violation of natural justice and procedural lapses.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order. It remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fair opportunity to present his case.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside an enhancement of Rs. 90.52 crores made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), holding that the CIT(A) had erred in treating the loan amount as income from undisclosed sources under sections 69A and 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Upon review, the ITAT Bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara ( Judicial Member ) and Shi M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) observed that the CIT(A) had erred in upholding the AO’s disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 5,47,39,150 under section 69C and adding the principal loan amount of Rs. 90.52 crores under sections 69A/69B. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) enhancement relied heavily on the AO’s initial doubts without robust factual backing.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case back to the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ) for fresh adjudication of its section 11(1A) exemption claim, highlighting the inadequate discussion in the impugned order.
The two-member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara ( Judicial Member ) and M. Balaganesh ( Accountant Member ) remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A)-NFAC to provide detailed adjudication and frame points of discussion as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reconsideration, noting that the CIT(A) deleted income tax additions under Income Tax Act,1961 (ITA) made by the Revenue without considering the Assessing Officer’s observations.
The ITAT bench of Mr Rifaur Rahman and Mr Sudhir Kumar concurred with the Revenue’s argument, noting that the CIT(A) had failed to provide detailed reasoning for dismissing the AO’s findings. The Tribunal stressed the need for a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi recently clarified that the time of uploading the Order by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) onto the Income Tax Business Application ( ITBA ) Portal is to be deemed as the ‘time of dispatch’ of the Order towards the concerned Assessee.
The ITAT Bench, composed of M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member, observed that a cohesive reading of Section 130 and 144B of the Act read together with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 indicates that dispatch by the DRP is deemed to be complete the moment the DRP uploads the concerned document onto the ITBA Portal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee following a request for withdrawal due to the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024.
After considering the submission made by the assessee’s counsel, the two-member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, recently granted relief to Cheil India by affirming that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses incurred by them in light of contributions towards Clean Ganga Fund and Swacch Bharath Kosh qualify for tax deductions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, constituted by Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Sudhir Pareek, Judicial Member laid careful consideration to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal in the case of M/s Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) which relied wholly on the decision in Interglobe Technology Quotient Private Limited Vs ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi (2024).
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that undisclosed income is to be computed based on the principle of real income and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The bench observed that, due to the assessee’s failure to file relevant evidence, the CIT(A) considered the assessee’s gross profits for the previous two years and estimated a profit margin of 6%. The ITAT, comprising Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) and T. R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Delhi Bench, recently directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)-NFAC) to reassess a case involving alleged unexplained cash deposits by an assessee and pass a reasoned order after considering the evidence submitted by the said assessee.
After examining the case, the bench of Judicial Member Madhumita Roy noted that the appellant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence in the earlier stages should not preclude a fair examination of the case.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the peak credit assessed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], owing to the circular transactions.
The ITAT bench of Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member S R Raghunatha noted that taxing the total deposits without recognising the nature of these transactions would lead to unjust enrichment of the Revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, recently ruled in favour of an assessee by deleting an addition of ₹13.60 lakhs under section 68 ofthe Income Tax Act 1961 (ITA), noting that the addition was made without any incriminating evidence.
At the hearing, the tribunal bench of Mr Satbeer Singh Godara and Mr M Balaganeshl observed that the assessment year was “unabated,” implying that it could not be reopened unless incriminating material was unearthed during the search. However, upon examining the records, the tribunal noted a glaring absence of such evidence. The judicial members referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023), which established that additions in unabated assessments must be based solely on seized material.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
