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 20th September 2024 to 27th September 2024.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)ordered for fresh adjudication after an email communication error led to the non-appearance of the assessee, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)].
The bench set aside the matter and granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT-A, with the condition of no adjournments without valid cause, and directed a fresh adjudication. The two-member bench comprising Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
A single member bench Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member) partly allowed the appeal.
In the recent ruling, the Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that co-operative societies offering credit facilities to their members can claim deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) restored the issue of the assesseeās claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the AO for fresh consideration, instructed the AO to verify if interest or dividends came from investments in cooperative societies qualifying for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), and noted that if interest from banks was treated as āIncome from Other Sources,ā the AO should grant relief under section 57, resulting in a partly allowed appeal.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) ruled that the mere submission of documents was not sufficient under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal emphasized that proper inquiry and verification by the assessing officer were essential for valid assessment.
The tribunal emphasized that merely submitting documents without actual verification by the AO does not fulfill the conditions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the revision order by the PCIT was upheld and the assesseeās appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) quashed the reassessment order on cash deposits due to the assessing officerās vague reasoning and non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
Therefore, the tribunal quashed the reassessment order due to the assessing officerās vague reasons and non-application of mind for reopening the assessment, making the reassessment invalid. The tribunal did not examine other legal issues and merits of the case as the reassessment order was invalidated. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Amritsar Bench of Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) ruled that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 can only be invoked if the taxpayer maintains books of accounts. In this case, the assessee filed an income tax return under Section 44AD which does not require books of accounts.
The tribunal found that the cash deposits were matched by equivalent withdrawals, and the assessee was entitled to the telescoping benefit.
Thus, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 9,853,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty of Rs. 3,271,507 under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted. The assesseeās appeal were allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the amendment to Section 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 which aimed to clarify the law, cannot be applied retrospectively if it alters existing law.
The two member bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee(Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal(Accountant Member) declined to interfere with the appeal regarding Section 14A and dismissed the revenueās grounds on this issue.
It remitted the matter back to the AO to verify the details of share purchases under Section 94(7), ensuring the assessee received a reasonable opportunity for hearing. Thus,the appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 133-day delay in filing appeals Apollo Education Trust, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and remitted the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication.
The two-member bench comprising Keshav Dubey ( Judicial Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) condoned the 133-day delay in filing the appeals and remitted the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, resulting in all appeals being partly allowed.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication due to incorrect facts and findings recorded in the CIT(A)ās order.
The tribunal directed the assessee to prepare and submit the relevant materials for fresh consideration before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A).
The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) ruled that Foreign Tax Credit should not be denied just because of late filing of Form 67. The tribunal emphasized that Form 67 is directory rule, not mandatory under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
The tribunal concluded that Form 67 is a directory and not mandatory and its late submission should not result in the denial of FTC. Therefore, the tribunal directed the assessing officer to allow the FTC claim after due verification under the law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) erred by not referring the land valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer ( DVO ) under section 50C(2) of Income Tax Act,1961.
The two member bench comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail(Judicial Member) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after obtaining a DVO valuation, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer (AO) on unexplained jewelry by applying the benefit under the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) instruction 1961, which permits jewelry possession for other family members.
The two-member bench comprising George George K (Vice President) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) observed that the AO had not properly considered the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 for exempting family-held gold, and the benefit should have been extended to all family members.
Therefore, the tribunal deleted the addition of ā¹44,77,752 made by the AO. The assesseeās appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered fresh adjudication on the Grow Foundationās final registration application under Section 80G(5), which had been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] due to the delayed filing of Form 10AB.
The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Makrand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) concluded that the application could not be denied for not being submitted by 30.09.2023, and the tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to provide the assessee a hearing before making a decision.
In a ruling recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Bangalore, directed an individual assessee to substantiate the genuineness of a large cash deposit made during the 2016 demonetization period. The tribunalās order came in response to an appeal filed by the assessee, who was contesting the addition of over ā¹50 lakh to his taxable income by the Income Tax Department, citing it as unexplained cash.
In result, the ITAT remitted the case back to the Income Tax Officer for a fresh assessment, instructing the appellant to provide all necessary documents to prove the authenticity of the deposits.
The Nagpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]ās order regarding Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) demands, stating that TDS orders issued beyond the four-year limit are invalid.
The two member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M.Roy (Accountant Member) agreed with the AR, found the order against non-residents time-barred, noted a non-materialized credit of income to a resident, and ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13, stating the assessee was not in default.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
