This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week 14th September 2024 to 19th September 2024.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following a 25-day delay in the appeal, which was attributed to the condonation application and affidavit citing staff illness and the election code of conduct.
The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., Employees Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. found the reasons for delay disruptions due to the election code of conduct and subsequent Board meetings to be sufficient for condonation.
The Tribunal thus decided to allow the delay and remand the case for a merit review. In alignment with the precedent set by the Bangalore Bench, the Tribunal, under the bench led by George George K, condoned the 25-day delay in the current case and directed the CIT (A) to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The appeal is thus allowed for statistical purposes.
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the matter was restored to the CIT (A) for consideration of the issues on merit.
In a significant ruling, the Special bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Mumbai held that nationalized banks are liable for Minimum Alternate Tax ( MAT ) following amendments introduced by the Finance Act of 2012.
After a detailed review of the arguments, the special bench of Mr CV Bhadang, Mr BR Baskaran and Amit Shukla ruled in favor of the Revenue Department. The tribunal observed that the 2012 amendment clearly extended MAT to nationalized banks, despite their formation under a special statute.
With this ruling, the ITAT confirmed that nationalized banks, including Union Bank of India and Central Bank of India, are liable for MAT from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored the case for de novo adjudication.
It was further observed by the ITAT bench, comprising of Aby T Varkey and Manoj Kumar Agarwal, that by considering the principle of natural justice, the file is to be restored back for fresh adjudication. For statistical purposes, the appeal stands allowed.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ) found that the non-appearance of assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] was due to hearing notices being sent to an email address specified in Form 35 as not for communication.
The two-member bench comprising Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) confirms Rs. 2513 Crore loss disallowance of the assessee Nayara Energy Ltd. The tribunal cited the lack of a Share Purchase Agreement ( SPA ) and insufficient evidence of fair valuation as reasons for treating the Inter-Corporate Deposits ( ICDs ) as a sham transaction.
Therefore, the tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Rs. 2,513 crore loss claimed by the assessee. The tribunal cited the missing SPA, the questionable timing of the fair valuation, and the lack of a genuine business rationale as key reasons for its decision. It confirmed that the transaction was a sham, and the loss was not deductible under the Income Tax Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee on this ground had been dismissed.
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench held that full deduction claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961 (ITA) is allowable on capital gains reinvestment with proforma purchaser.
Thus, the tribunal confirmed that the joint purchase did not bar the appellant from claiming the entire deduction, given that the investment had come from his own funds. In result, the Revenue’s ground was rejected.
The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld a 20% addition on alleged bogus purchases due to unverified sellers. The tribunal reduced the original 25% disallowance, agreeing that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and confirmed penalty proceedings.
The two member bench comprising Narinder Kumar (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) upheld the 25% disallowance of bogus purchases but reduced the GP rate from 25% to 20%. The appeal was dismissed, and the disallowance and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were confirmed.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the additions of Rs. 90,79,428 and Rs. 29,60,999 related to sundry creditors due to insufficient verification efforts by the Assessing Officer ( A O ) and Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)].
The two member bench comprising Beena Pillai ( Judicial Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) deleted the additions of Rs. 90,79,428 and Rs. 29,60,999 due to the non-verification of confirmation letters by the AO and CIT(A).
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Assessing Officer ( AO )’s addition of Rs. 60,529 to the income of the assessee due to non-filing of evidence for discrepancies in sundry creditors’ balances.
The two member bench comprising Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) upheld the addition of Rs. 60,529 due to the lack of evidence.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)ruled that the guidance value of land or building should be used to determine the consideration when the transfer value of a capital asset is not determinable.
A two-member bench comprising Soundararajan K(Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari(Accountant Member) found no issues with the CIT(A)’s approach and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revenue appeal on Educational Institution’s Tax Exemption due to non-compliance with the requirements prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two-member bench comprising Rama Kanta Panda (Vice President) and Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) observed that AO had not provided any specific evidence of non-compliance with the conditions for the exemption.
The tribunal emphasized that the CCIT’s approval for the exemption was still valid and that the AO did not follow the necessary statutory procedures under Section 143(3), which require notification to the prescribed authority (CCIT) before disallowing the exemption. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed revenue’s appeal and upheld CIT(A)’s decision in favor of the assessee.
In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that it is unreasonable to calculate interest on trade receivables solely for determining arm’s length price (ALP).
The ITAT bench comprising of Manjunatha G. And K. Narasimha Chary allowed the appeal in part and the order was pronounced in the open court on 11-09-2024.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
