This is the weekly round of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that were published at Taxscan.in from March 01, 2024 to March 08 are analytically summarized in this Round-Up.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that Successor companies could claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the recognition of Industrial Park Scheme, 2006.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench of Manjunatha. G ( Accountant member ) and Manomohan Das ( Judicial Member )observed that Successor companies could claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the recognition of Industrial Park Scheme, 2006. Therefore the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that no addition should be made on account of sale of gold when it is reflected under the head sale in regular books.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Yogesh Kumar US, ( Judicial Member ) held that no addition should be made on account of sale of gold when it is reflected under the head sale in regular books.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that receipts from sale/distribution of software to Indian Associate Enterprise ( AE ) are not taxable under the Article 12(3) of India-Singapore DTAA,.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, ( Judicial Member ) hold that the subject matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT Therefore receipts from sale/distribution of software to Indian Associate Enterprise ( AE ) are not taxable under the Article 12(3) of India-Singapore DTAA,.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that stamp value on date of agreement on sale of property to be considered for applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Two-Member Bench of C.N Prasad, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member observed that “In view of the foregoing discussion, the provisions of s. 56(2)(vii)(b) do not apply to the facts of the instant case as it is covered by the first and second provisos inasmuch as the assessee entered into an agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the purchase of the immovable property in the year 2010 but the actual registration took place in 2013 and , further , the assessee paid a part of the consideration by cheque in the year 2010 before the date of the agreement. In such circumstances, we hold that, it is the stamp value on the date of agreement in the year 2010, has to be considered.”
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition made on account of salary in cash without having any documents
The tribunal during the adjudication observed that Salary of Rs.1,00 ,000/- has been regularly paid from every month by cheque. Since 01.10 .2016 an amount of Rs.1 ,00,000/- each has been paid and reflected in the books. Thereafter, there was no salary payment owing to termination of the employee. Thus entry made on the date of 01.11.2015 was notional and no salary has been paid in cash as the employee has been terminated Therefore the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Yogesh Kumar US, ( Judicial Member ) deleted the addition made on account of salary in cash without having any documents . Mayank Patawari, counsel appeared for assessee and Sapna Bhatia, counsel appeared for revenue.
The two member bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that stubbed diamond jewelry found during the search proceedings should not need to be declared in wealth tax return. Hence the bench deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer.
Therefore the two-member bench Of N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant member) and Yogesh Kumar Us, (Judicial Member) observed that “diamond jewellery is always studded with gold and it is not a case of revenue that separate diamonds were found during the search operation. Merely because the jewellery is studded with the diamond of 47.18 carat in the instant case, the same cannot be added in the hands of the assessee when such jewellery formed part of the gross weight of the jewellery found from the premises of the assessee.”
In a recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has clarified that delivery costs and warranty expenses should not be categorized as advertising, marketing, and promotion ( AMP ) expenditures.
The tribunal of George George K. ( Vice President ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) held that these costs should not be considered as part of AMP expenditure, concluding that the CIT (TP) was not justified in revising the order under Section 263 on this specific issue.
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 ) 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.
The two member bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Delhi bench directed to allow exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only after verifying the status of STT payment.
After Reviewing decision assessee own case for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2013-14 the two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Accountant member ) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya,( Accountant Member ) directed to allow exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only after verifying the status of STT payment. Tarandeep Singh, counsel appeared for assessee and Sanjay Gupta appeared for the revenue.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to allow exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that non-filing audit report along with income tax returns ( ITR ) is procedural omission.
The Coram comprising Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant Member ) observed that “Non filing of Audit Report along with return of income is a procedural omission and cannot be an impediment in law in claiming the exemption, we allow this appeal condoning the delay in filing the Audit Report in Form No. 10B. However, we also upon condoning the delay, restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to pass order in regard to the exemption claimed by the assessee strictly in accordance with law.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench recently upheld the addition made on account of commission income earned from the accommodation entries.
After reviewing the facts and circumstances the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, (Accountant member) and Challa Nagendra Prasad, (Judicial Member) upheld that the addition was made on account of commission income earned from the accommodation entries. Amol Sinha, counsel appeared for assessee and P.N Barnwal, counsel appeared for revenue.
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that cash deposits in bank account from sale proceeds received in cash on due explanation, is not unexplained credit.
A Single Member Bench of M Balaganesh observed that “The assessee in the return filed on 22.05.2018 in response to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had declared income of Rs. 5,27,050/- which is nothing but the salary income. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee did not have any other source of income except salary which is only Rs. 5.27 lakhs. While this is so how the assessee could have made reinvestment in new property for Rs. 52,63,500/- would become point to ponder. Considering this fact itself, I hold that the explanation given by the assessee that he had received Rs. 29 lakhs in cash on sale of property is to be believed and assessee faithfully had deposited the said sum in his bank account within short span of time.”
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that cash deposit on demonetization not to be taxed as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on explanation of source.
The Bench of Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member ) observed that “The evidences produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee has received fees from students related to the event as well as study tour including the buildthon event fund. The assessee has given the cash bills from bank from 01-04-2016 to 08-11-2016.”
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that marketing service rendered by the US entity in India is not taxable in India aa Fee for Technical Service (FTS). Therefore the bench deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer.
After observing the submissions of both parties the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, (Accountant member) and George George K, (Vice President) confirmed the order of tribunal in assessee own case for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Thus the bench observed that “the services received by the assessee company cannot be considered as ‘royalty’ or fees for included services and the assessee was not under obligation to deduct TDS on this payment and as a consequence, the demand raised by the AO Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act cannot survive and the same is deleted”.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) observed that the assessee was entitled to claim credit for Minimum Alternate Tax ( MAT ) under the Vivad se Vishwas ( VSV ) Scheme for the year under consideration.
The coram of Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) and Padmavathy S. ( Accountant member ) concluded that the lower authorities have denied the claim of the assessee for the reason that the claim was not adequately substantiated. Therefore ITAT remitted the issue back to the assessing officer with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee based on the documentary evidence and allow the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as treating personal expenses as income precludes loan classification, and income cannot be taxed twice in the same assessment year.
The two member Bench of the tribunal comprising C.N.Prasad ( Judicial member ) and Dr.B.R.R Kumar ( Accountant member ) observed that the Assessing Officer has treated the personal expenses incurred by M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd as income of the assessee, then the same amount cannot be treated as loan in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. It was added that the same income cannot be taxed in two hands in the same assessment year and CIT (A) has rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
In a major decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Mumbai ruled that the omission to sign the assessment order by the Assessing Officer cannot be remedied by relying on Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of Vijay Corporation versus ITO, the Co-ordinate Bench in a case where the assessment order served on the assessee was not signed by the assessing officer, however, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Gagan Goyal ( Accountant member ) and Vikas Aswathy ( Judicial member ) held that requirement of signature of the assessing officer was a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessment cannot be cured by relying on the provisions of Section 2928 of the Income Tax Act and holding the order invalid.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted addition under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act and held that discrepancies in maintaining KYC Documentation does not constitute incriminating material.
The bench of Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) and B.R. Baskaran ( Accountant Member ) observed that “For discrepancies in maintaining KYC documentation, account opening form, and violation of society byelaws, action can be taken against the assessee under the relevant statute or by the concerned authority, such as RBI, however, the same cannot lead to an addition in the hands of the assessee under the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered view that the material/documents found during the course of the search are not of such a nature which incriminates or militates against the assessee.”
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), citing no evidence of cash payments for demand drafts to 34 parties.
The Tribunal consisting, Saktijih Dey ( Vice President ) and N.K.Billaiya ( Accountant member) observed that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the assessee has purchased the demand drafts by paying cash to 34 parties. The AO has also not brought any evidence to demolish the affirmations made in the affidavits of the persons who have given advances. It appeared that the AO has made the additions on suspicion, conjecture and surmises without any evidence and the CIT (A) has deleted the impugned additions on proper appreciation of facts. Thus, the ITAT does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT (A).
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that capital gain deduction should not be denied even if new property purchased in the name of spouse.
the two-member bench Of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, ( Accountant member ) and Saktijit Dey, ( Vice President ) relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal observed that a new house purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) to annul an addition made, citing a discrepancy between Form 26AS and the Profit & Loss Account, attributable to the declaration of service tax amounts.
The tribunal, comprising Amjit Shukla (Judicial member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant member), examined the records and noted that the primary contention revolved around the disparity between the amounts declared in the Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS. The significant difference, amounting to ₹.2,82,98,438/-, was attributed to service tax. Additionally, it was highlighted that the assessee also recorded discrepancies related to income offered in the previous year’s returns and certain income relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, which were reflected in the gross income declared in Form 26AS. Upon reviewing the detailed reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee before the CIT (A), the ITAT found no grounds to overturn the findings of the CIT (A). Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that share capital received from directors and shareholders of the company was duly discharged with evidence . Therefore the bench deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Narendra Kumar Billaiya, (Accountant member) and Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) observed that share capital received from directors and shareholders of the company was duly discharged with evidence . Thus the bench deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee Bawa Float Glass Ltd held that absence of Document identification Number ( DIN ) while granting statutory approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961would tantamount to no approval in the eyes of law and the approval under Section 153D Income Tax Act, 1961 is rendered non-est.
Therefore the two-member bench Of Laxmi Prasad Sahu, ( Accountant member ) and George George K, ( Vice President ) set aside the assessment order passed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act and canceled in view of the legal infirmity of absence of DIN on the body of statutory approval granted under Section 153D of the Act by the competent authority i.e. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, stating that property sale consideration should not be grounds for inaccurate income particulars.
Thus, the single member bench of Pradip Kumar Kediya ( Accountant member ) found force in the plea of the assessee that the action of the AO while imposing the penalty does not meet the requirement of law. Hence, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was quashed In the result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) while granting relief to Sony India the bench held that liability does not arise since failure to demand notice with respect to interest component of Fringe Benefit Tax ( FBT ).
Therefore the two-member bench of G.S. Pannu, ( Vice President ) and Saktijit Dey, ( Vice President ) observed that there cannot be a levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act for alleged non-payment of FBT liability. Furthermore, the records reveal that once the assessee came to know the fact that the demand relating to FBT liability was appearing in the portal of the Income Tax Department, it had opened a communication channel with the Assessing Officer continuously seeking information regarding service of intimation and demand notice creating such liability.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has denied eligibility for charitable purposes under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to services related to trade or business.
The Coram of Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) noted that nothing has been spent by the assessee, which could be considered in the nature of charity and therefore, the benefit under the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, was not available to the assessee. ITAT did not find any merit in the argument of the counsel for the assessee to support various grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds of assessee are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are dismissed, in the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
