This Round-Up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during September 30 to October 06, 2023.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the value of the property assessed by the stamp valuation authority (SVA) on the date of agreement to sale shall be taken for computing the full value of the consideration for transfer under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) held that neither the “agreement to sell” dated 06.03.2014; nor the contents thereof had been doubted by the Assessing Officer in the course of the remand proceedings, therefore, as observed by the CIT(A), and rightly so, the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of the “agreement to sell” i.e. 06.03.2014 was to be taken for computing full value of consideration for such transfer under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] adopted the entire salary instead of considering the Basic & DA while computing the benefit under Section 10(13A) of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with Rule 2A of the Income Tax Rules,1962, therefore remitted this issue to the file of Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the issue for the purpose of quantification of Housing Rent Allowance (HRA).
The Bench comprising of Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and MS. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member observed that these details are not available in the return of income filed by the assessee along with Form No.16. It was further observed that the CIT(A) adopted the entire salary instead of considering the Basic & DA while computing the benefit under Section 10(13A) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 2A of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of AO to re-examine the issue for the purpose of quantification of HRA on the basis of Form No.16 filed by the assessee before lower authorities. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of AO for reconsideration so as to grant deduction towards HRA. Hence the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to share information of beneficiaries of leading kingpins providing bogus long term capital gains within 90 days.
The two-member Bench of Prashant Maharishi, (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail,(Judicial Member) observed that the assessee had given names of (i) all the persons to whom the accommodation entries were provided, (ii) the persons who were working along with the assessee in the above money-laundering operation, (iii) names of directors of companies involved in this massive money laundering activities, (iv) and the rate of commission that he used to charge on the same
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, could not exceed income while computing the income under normal provisions and book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
The two-member Bench of Aby T. Varkey, (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant, (Accountant Member) noted that the Revenue had raised similar contention in the case of ACIT vs K Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021). Rejecting the same, this Tribunal had held that the Explanation introduced in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act 2022 had prospective application. Accordingly, it was held that, if during the relevant year, the assessee had not earned any tax-free income, disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act was not permissible.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirms the Income Tax addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of evidence proving the unsubstantial increase in the business capital.
The Two-member bench comprising of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant member) held that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the submission made by the assessee which, more importantly, has been for the first time furnished before the CIT(A). And the findings arrived at by CIT(A) on submissions made by the assessee, in no way demonstrate, the conduct of any enquiry either by himself or through the Assessing Officer while disposing of the appeal, granting relief to the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that taking separate exemption for claiming contribution to the gratuity fund was not needed as approval granted to master trust was applicable to companies formed by restructuring.
The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy, (Judicial Member), allowed this ground of appeal filed by the assessee holding that the Master Trust having been granted approval by the Commissioner, the initial restructuring of the GEB had brought out no change in the character or functioning of the Trust. Therefore, the requirement of entities, which were created on account of restructuring of GEB , seeking approval afresh of the Master Trust, was nothing but a mere but a mere technicality, and the assessee’s claim of contribution to this Trust could not be denied on account of not fulfilling this technical requirement technicality, and the assessee’s claim of contribution to this Trust could not be denied on account of not fulfilling this technical requirement.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the cash deposited in the bank account as a result of earlier withdrawal cannot be treated as unexplained/undisclosed income.
The Two-member bench comprising of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member) and T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial member) held that the CIT(A) in his order has admitted that there was a cash withdrawal from the bank before depositing the same in the bank account of the assessee. None of the authorities below has pointed out that the cash withdrawn from the bank has been utilized by the assessee for any other purpose.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the disallowances under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the interest paid towards late payment of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is not compensatory in nature.
The Two-member bench comprising of R.K. Panda (Vice-President) and Laliet Kumar (Judicial member) observed that there was no merit in the submission of the assessee as the assessee has not paid the contribution under ESI and PF Act within the time provided by the said Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench while deleting the addition made on account of notional Rental Income, observed that no real rental income received from litigation filed for recovery of arrears of the rent.
After considering the facts submitted and circumstances, the two member bench of Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Accountant Member) and Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) held that when no real rental income has been earned and received by the assessee, then no such income can be held as taxable in the hands of assessee on account of notional rental income under the head income from other sources.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench deleted the penalty of Rupees 132 crore imposed on Jaypee Cement for misreporting of income by the tax auditor in the tax return.
After considering the facts and circumstance , the two member bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) observed that assessee‘s case would squarely fall under the exception provided under Section 270A(6)(a) of the Income Tax Act wherein, the assessee had given its bona fide explanation and had disclosed all the material facts that are relevant for the explanation offered. Therefore the bench deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad bench held that freight inward charges was part and parcel of the purchase of goods. Therefore, the bench deleted the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on non deduction of TDS.
After considering the facts and circumstances, the two member bench of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) deleted the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the addition for deemed dividend under Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act,1961 could only be made in the hands of shareholders.
The two-memeber Bench of Manish Borad, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) observed that, “Addition for deemed dividend can be made only in the hands of the shareholder of the lending company and since assessee is not a shareholder being a beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power in the lending company, namely, Apeejay Tea Limited., Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of assessee in appeal before us.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) Mumbai bench held that income by way of statutory contribution received from the recognized stock exchange is eligible for exemption under Section 10 (23EC) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
After considering the facts submitted and circumstance , the two member bench of Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member ) and Rahul Chaudhary,(Judicial Member) observed that income of the assessee with respect to contribution received from recognized stock exchange and the members thereof is eligible for exemption under section 10 (23EC) of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that the assessee has evaded tax by way of colourable devices and sham transactions to defraud the income tax department.
After considering the facts submitted and circumstances, the two member bench of Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Accountant Member) and Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) held that assessee has evaded tax by way of colourable devices and sham transactions to defraud the income tax department.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules 1962.
The two-member Bench of Manish Borad, (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma, (Judicial Member) set aside the impugned order and deleted the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rules for the impugned assessment years holding the admitted fact that there was no finding of the revenue authorities at any stage indicating specifically that interest bearing funds had been applied for the purpose of making investments.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted addition under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act made solely on the basis of WhatsApp chat.
The two-member Bench of Chandra MO Han Garg, (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar, (Accountant Member) noted that there was no other evidence in the hands of AO supporting the factum of cash payment to said two employees and the Assessing Officer had proceeded to make addition on the basis of WhatsApp chats between Seema Dutta and Aman Sheghal and their statements only and no other documentary evidence or adverse positive material had been found and searched during the course of search and seizure operation.
The Kerala High Court allowed one month time to file an appeal under sales tax as the notice demanding sales tax was issued after a three-month limitation under section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 when the assessee prepared a sales tax appeal.
Considering the circumstance the single judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh petitioner was granted one month to file an appeal against the order. It was further held that “for one month from today, the impugned notice shall not be implemented.”
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessment order passed without proper examination of evidence shall be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Two-member bench comprising of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial member) held that no fault could be found in the observation that the assessment was framed without making due enquiries. In such a case, the revision would be justified in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (243 ITR 83). Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) where the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in assuming jurisdiction and in reopening the assessment and the consequent reassessment made under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was held to be without valid jurisdiction and thus annulled.
The Two Member Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member observed that in the present case, the reassessment notice has been issued at old address and the assessment order is an ex-parte order. Further it was noted that reopening has been done merely at the behest of communication received from ACIT to reopen the case of the present assessee to tax short term capital gains while he had already reopened the assessment of payer assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the AO has wrongly invoked the provision of clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which applies only where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee. However, in the case of the assessee, the return of income was filed and the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed by the jurisdictional AO accepting the returned Income of the assessee. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal found no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the CIT(A). Hence, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that 1/3rd disallowance of the said expenses and accepted the remaining expenses implies partially admission that the assessee has incurred expenses for its own business, thus the Assessing Officer (AO) as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was not justified in making the disallowance for the expenses which were claimed by the assessee.
The Single Member Bench comprising of Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member observed that the disallowance made by AO due to no documentary proof in support of expenses relating to salary and bonus paid to the employees, petrol expenses and usage of vehicles for personal and business purpose as well as expenses relating to telephone appears to be incorrect as the assessee has given the details of expenses made by the assessee during the course of conducting the business. Further the Tribunal noted that the AO has disallowed 1/3rd of the said expenses and accepted the remaining expenses and, therefore partially admitted that the assessee has incurred expenses for its own business. The Bench held that the AO as well as the CIT(A) was not justified in making the disallowance for the expenses which were claimed by the assessee. Hence, appeal filed by assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the standard belief or mistake in computing income tax cannot be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income and thus deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The Single Member Bench comprising of Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member observed that the assessee while computing the income and filing revised income was under bonafide mistake/bonafide belief that the assessee can claim the entire charges of amount paid to the AUDA as Capital Gain as deduction under Capital Gain. It was held that the standard belief or mistake cannot be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Limited and therefore held that the penalty does not survive. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the case of the assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny (CASS) and the scope of verification was confined only to the genuineness of capital gain and its correct reflection in the return of income therefore the AO did not examine the issue of deduction towards remuneration to partners in the assessment order.
The Two Member Bench comprising of R. S. Syal, Vice President and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member held that as the CCIT did not make out any case of converting ‘limited scrutiny’ into ‘complete scrutiny’ as a ground for revision, the contention of the DR on this score cannot be entertained. Therefore the CCIT was not justified in branding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in both the years under consideration are not based upon any incriminating material found during the course of search operations.
The two member bench consisting of Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial member) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant member) held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in both the years under consideration are liable to the deleted. There is no requirement to adjudicate the issues urged on merit.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee clearly deserves to be considered under Section 274 where in it is provided that if assessee is able to establish the reasonable cause.
The two member bench of the tribunal consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant member) held that the assessee clearly deserves to be considered under Section 274 wherein it is provided that if assessee is able to establish the reasonable cause behind its failure, no penalty can be imposed. In the given circumstances, the action of AO were not accepeted and appeal order passed by . CIT(A), in the result penalty imposed is directed to be deleted. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no fault could be found in the observation that the assessment was framed without making due enquiries. In such a case, revision would be justified in terms of the decision of Supreme Court.
The two member bench consisting of Manomohan Das (Judicial member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant member) he that no fault could be found in the observation that the assessment was framed without making due enquiries. In such a case, revision wou be justified in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. The case law of Denial Merchants P. Ltd. vs. ITO, as referred to by CIT-DR, also supports the revision of the order. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the transactions in question would not constitute international transaction relating to AMP expenditure.
The two member bench consisting of B.R Baskaran (Accountant member) and N.K Choudhary (Judicial member) held that the said transactions would not constitute international transaction relating to AMP expenditure. It was also observed that BLT method as adopted by the TPO was not a valid method to benchmark the transactions. The technical collaboration agreement as referred to by . TPO did not envisage any such express arrangement / agreement between the assessee and its AE and therefore, the same could not support the case of the revenue. Thus the addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the society not being wholly/substantially financed by the government cannot raise a claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-member bench comprising of Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) held that the assessee society which admittedly not being wholly and substantially financed by the government was disentitled from raising a claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, to have applied for registration and raised a claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the failure of the assessee to submit the information regarding the cost involved in furnishing flats.
The Two-member bench comprising of Amit Shukla (Judicial member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant member) held that there was a huge difference in the rent collected by the assessee from M/s.Hover India Automotive and M/s.Anmol Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., and both are claimed to be furnished apartments.
It was observed from the record that the assessee has not submitted any information regarding the cost involved in furnishing of above flats to the tax authorities. During the hearing, the bench asked the assessee to submit the balance sheet of the assessee company as well as the sister concern i.e., M/s Lalco Services Apartment LLP but no such information was submitted subsequently and till date. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor has furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The Bench comprising of Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member observed that the sum of Rs. 5,10,090/- was the interest paid / credited on the aforesaid cash credits as well as seized liability and therefore, since this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, the Tribunal is of considered view that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that this is not a case where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Hence the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revision order on the ground of deduction made towards the remuneration of partners which was not covered within the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Two-member bench comprising of R.S. Syal (Vice-President) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial member) held that the scope of the Assessing Officers verification did not cover the issue of remuneration to partners. The CCIT did not make any case of converting ‘limited scrutiny’ into ‘complete scrutiny’ as a ground for revision. It is, therefore, held that the CCIT was not justified in branding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, the appeal was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the municipal tax shall be allowable as expenditure under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the assessee paid the proportionate tax to the society.
The Two-member bench comprising of Amit Shukla (Judicial member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant member) held that this system of collection of municipal taxes are common in the housing societies where the ownership of the building is with the society and the land belongs to 3rd parties as land owners. The municipality register or receipt will not have the name of the flat owners, but the name of the land owners. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was proper in this case and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim after verification. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Denial of export benefits merely due to non-availability of International Private Leased Circuit connection when the evidence for rendering of services, invoicing for the services done and realization of foreign currency are established, is not justified.
After hearing both the parties, two member bench of the tribunal consisting of Beena Pillai (Judicial member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant member) held that the denial of export benefits merely due to non-availability of International Private Leased Circuit connection when the evidence for rendering of services, invoicing for the services done and realisation of foreign currency are established, is not justified. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), when ruling on the appeal, noted that the Income Tax Department had erred by classifying partners’ remuneration as salary income.
After considering the facts submitted and circumstances, the two member bench of G.D. Padmahshali (Accountant Member) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) remanded the file back to NFAC for readjudication of remuneration given to a partner by the partnership firm. Pramod Shingte, counsel appeared for the assessee and Ganesh Budruk, counsel appeared for the revenue.
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition under Section 56(2) (viib) of the Income Tax Act as the share premium received by the company was in excess of the Fair market value of share.
The two-member Bench of Chandra Poojari, (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy, (Judicial Member) having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upheld the finding of the authorities and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the share premium received by the company was in excess of fair market value of the share, the addition thus made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act was found to be just and proper.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the Fair Market Value (FMV) holding that the two FMV reports could not be considered for the same property on a particular date.
The two member Bench of Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman, (Accountant Member) observed that on pursuing first proviso to clause (x) would make it clear that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable properties and the date of registration are different, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The second proviso to clause (x) further clarifies that the first proviso shall apply where the assessee had paid part consideration by way of cheque or bank draft or through electronic clearing system of on or before the date of agreement.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not reject the valuation report of share merely based on the absence of DCF method in rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962 at the time of issuance of shares.
The two-member Bench of N.K. Billaiya, (Accountant Member), And Anubhav Sharma, (Judicial Member) observed that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any flaw, infirmity or error in the valuation of the fair market value determined by DCF method and had simply rejected because on the date of issue of shares, DCF method was not there in Rule 11UA of the Income Tax rules, but was subsequently introduced. In our considered opinion, this could not be a valid reason for discarding the valuation.
The Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals as the Assessing officer had simply rejected the valuation of the assessee on the ground that on the date of issue of shares, DCF method was not there in Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rules.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that no transfer pricing applicable to income from operation carried out through qualifying ships taxed under Tonnage Tax Scheme(TTS).
After considering the facts submitted and circumstances, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) held that “transfer pricing regulations do not apply to the assessee to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships where the income is taxed under TTS.”
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while granting relief to the assessee held that the incorrect accounting and wrong grouping of headings cannot be termed as a bogus investment.
The Two-member bench comprising of Sanjay Garg (Judicial member) and Manish Borad (Accountant member) held that it is not a case of bogus investment but it is a case where proper accounting under the correct group heading has not been done which has thus, giving rise to the issue in question before us.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench while deleting additions made towards the allocation of head office expenses held that qualifying activities under Tonnage Tax Scheme (TTS) are outside provisions of Transfer Pricing (TP).
After Reviewing the facts submitted and the circumstances, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) directed the assessing officer/TPO to delete the adjustment made towards the qualifying activities under TTS only.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 applies when shares are held as “stock -in-trade” for the purpose to trade in those shares and earn profits.
The Bench comprising of Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. wherein it has been held that when the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Income Tax Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax, which triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
