S. 54F Exemption Not Available On Property Predominantly Being Used For Religious Purposes: ITATCase Title: Asstt. CIT Versus Iqbal Ali KhanThe Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act is not available on property predominantly being used for religious purposes.ITAT Deletes Addition Of Unexplained Investment In...
S. 54F Exemption Not Available On Property Predominantly Being Used For Religious Purposes: ITAT
Case Title: Asstt. CIT Versus Iqbal Ali Khan
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act is not available on property predominantly being used for religious purposes.
ITAT Deletes Addition Of Unexplained Investment In Stock Valuation Difference
Case Title: Ethiraj Hotel Mart Versus DCIT
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition of unexplained investment in stock as a difference in the valuation of stock.
Case Title: Indian Chamber of Commerce Versus DCIT
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Indian Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is entitled to claim exemption in respect of its entire receipts.
Case Title: DCIT verses Alom Extrusions Ltd.
Finding that assessee has discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors to the loan transaction, the Kolkata ITAT deleted the addition made for alleged unexplained loan under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the statement of third-party in a post-search assessment whose cross-examination was never allowed to assessee.
Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Management Ltd verses ACIT
While setting aside the CIT(A)'s order enhancing assessee's income under Section 251(1)(a) of Income tax Act, 1961 by disallowing Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses under Section 37(1), the Mumbai ITAT held that the CIT(A) has acted beyond his jurisdiction in enhancing assessee's income, since the AO during the course of assessment, has not taken into consideration the assessee's revised return and has not examined the taxability of ESOP expenses.
Case Title: Lex Sportel Vision Pvt Ltd Verses Income Tax Officer
Emphasizing that the right to broadcast live events i.e., “Live Rights”, is not “copyright” and therefore any payment made thereto can't be said to be chargeable to tax as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Delhi ITAT holds assessee as not in default for non-deduction of tax at source on foreign remittances made towards acquisition of right to broadcast 'live-events'.
Case Title: The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association verses Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
While setting aside the revision order passed on the ground that the AO did not conduct any enquiry or verification which should have been made with regards to income from auditorium hire charges, hoarding site & service charges and rent vis-a-vis Trust's objectives and consequential eligibility under Section 10(21), the Bench opined that it is important to show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers and that the revisionary powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a view was already taken after inquiry.
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax verses Nishant Kanodia
While opining that even if the taxpayer has left India for the purpose of business or profession, the same shall be considered for purpose of employment outside India under Explanation 1(a) to Section 6(1) of Income tax Act, 1961, the Mumbai ITAT held that assessee has rightly claimed to be a 'non-resident' as he stayed in India only for a period of 176 days during the year which entitles him to non-resident status as per Explanation 1(a) to Section 6(1).
Case Title: Mavenir UK Holdings verses ACIT
Noticing that the draft assessment order was passed on Mar 4, 2022 and the assessee filed objection before the DRP on Apr 6, 2022 which was beyond the due date provided for filing objection, the Delhi ITAT held the assessment order to be time-barred being passed beyond Section 144C(4) of Income tax Act, 1961 time-limit.
Case Title: BCP V Singapore FVCI Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Singaporean Entity has not escaped the income on repatriating Rs.203.56 Cr. arising from redemption of non-convertible debentures (NCDs).
Case Title: Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Versus DCIT
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the information found in the pen drive or laptop of employees cannot be considered credible evidence unless it has been corroborated with any other evidence.
ITAT Deletes Additions Against Unsuspecting Investor In A 'Penny Stock' To Make Quick Profit
Case Title: Farzad Sheriar Jehani Versus ITO
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee was an unsuspecting investor who transacted in a 'penny stock' with a view to earning a quick profit, and since his involvement in any dubious transaction relating to price rigging or connection with exit providers could not be shown, the transaction could not be treated as a 'pre-arranged' one even if there were no underlying fundamentals in or financial performance by the company whose shares were sold.
There Cannot Be Sale Without Purchase: ITAT Deletes Addition
Case Title: Bhartiya International Ltd. Versus DCIT
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition made by the AO as there cannot be a sale without a purchase.
Case Title: Shri Renukamata Multi–State Co-operative Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that income tax addition cannot be made for discrepancies in maintaining KYC documentation, account opening forms, and violation of society bye-laws.
Case Title: Sutherland Global Services Inc verses ACIT
The Chennai ITAT held that the orders passed by the DRP in violation of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated Aug 14, 2019, and without allotment of a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of such order is invalid, non-est and shall be deemed to have never been issued.
Case Title: Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd verses DCIT
Emphasizing that although Section 32 of Income tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein it was stated that 'goodwill' is not an intangible asset eligible for depreciation was applicable prospectively with effect from AY 2021-22, the Mumbai ITAT held that claim of depreciation of goodwill acquired pursuant to slump sale under a Business transfer agreement is allowable under Section 32(1).
Case Title: American Express Services India Ltd verses DCIT
Relying on Co-ordinate bench ruling in assessee's own case for AY 2004-05 wherein assessee's additional evidences were admitted and matter was remanded back to TPO for fresh adjudication, the Delhi ITAT admitted the assessee's additional evidence application qua comparables selection for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Case Title: Rajesh G. Jain verses Income Tax Officer
On finding that payment and purchase made by the assessee is not disputed by AO, the Mumbai ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition on sundry creditors.
Case Title: Dy. CIT vs M/s Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd.
While clarifying that amount received for sale distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films would not fall under the domain of 'Royalty', the Mumbai ITAT deleted the demand/addition for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: DCIT vs M/s. Sasan Power Ltd
While quashing the appeal filed by Revenue against the order passed u/s 250 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the Mumbai ITAT upheld the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A) to delete the order of penalty issued under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Income-tax Officer verses Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd
The Kolkata ITAT deleted the addition made under Section 68 of Income Tax, 1961 after finding that the assessee has established the onus placed upon him in respect of identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and also the genuineness of the transactions.
Case Title: Ravindra K. Reshamwala verses Income Tax Officer
While relying on the previous order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench under Ravindra K. Reshamwala v/s DCIT in ITA No.2648/Mum/2022, the Mumbai ITAT directed Assessing Officer to allow the claim under Section 35-AC of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Leelaben Kantilal Parekh verses Income Tax Officer
The Mumbai ITAT recently reiterated that a notice can be issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even after the expiry of limitation period, if the sanction for the same has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
Case Title: Iris Clothings Limited verses Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
While finding that the assessee has substantiated all evidences concerning transactions to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and proved the genuineness of the transactions, the Kolkata ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Gyandeep Charitable Trust verses A.D.I.T
While following the order of Co-ordinate Bench, the Ahmedabad ITAT condoned the delay and restored the matter to the file of CIT(A) to allow exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee as per the provisions of law.
Reopening Initiated On Basis Of Wrong Reasons Renders Very Assessment As Invalid: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: Good Shepherd Church Verses Income Tax Officer
On finding the reasoning behind the Assessment made by the Assessing Officer to be wrong, the Mumbai ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and National Faceless Appeal Centre.
Case Title: Colorplus Realty Limited Verses Dy. CIT
On finding profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking within the meaning of an expression under section 80-IB, the Mumbai ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Income-tax Officer verses M/s Aashna Developers Pvt Ltd.
On finding that the Revenue has grossly erred by treating the element of interest on the alleged loan as bogus in nature, the Ahmedabad ITAT held that the loan amount cannot be made subject to addition under the provisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, since loan was taken through banking channel and was repaid in the next year along with interest through banking channel and TDS was deducted on the interest.
Careless Attitude Of AO: Kolkata ITAT Deletes Addition Made Without Examining Nature Of Expenditure
Case Title: Ankit Impex Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd verses Income Tax Officer
On finding that expenses were incurred for the business purposes during the course of business, for which the assessee has submitted all basic details which was not cross verified by the AO, the Kolkata ITAT deleted the addition made by AO.
LTCG Not Eligible For Exemption U/s 10(38) If Claimed On Bogus Scrips: Ahmedabad ITAT
Case Title: Atmiben Aliptkumar Doshi verses The Income Tax Officer
On finding the scrips as non-genuine and bogus, the Ahmedabad ITAT confirms the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s decision for denying the LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
No Adjustment If Margin Falls Within Tolerance Range Of (+/-) 5% As Per Sec 92CA: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: ITO Verses M/s. Excult Client Services I P Ltd.
Finding that the margins of assessee company fell within the tolerance limit of +/-5% for AY 2005-06, the Mumbai ITATdeleted the ALP adjustments proposed by the TPO in ITEs as well as IT segments.
No Prima Facie Evidence To Prove Escapement: Delhi ITAT Quashes Reassessment Of Mauritian Entity
Case Title: AEP Investments (Mauritius) Ltd verses ACIT
Noting that the case has been reopened just because the assessee, i.e., a Mauritian investment company had made foreign remittance which arose from the sale of investments and there is no prima facie evidence to prove escapement of income, which is a pre-requisite for initiating reopening, the Delhi ITAT quashes reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee.
Case Title: BCP V Singapore FVCI P. Ltd Verses ACIT
Observing that the assessee has only repatriated the amounts invested in the earlier years and hence, no taxability arises during the year, the Delhi ITAT held that there is no escapement of income in the hands of assessee i.e., a Singaporean entity on repatriating Rs.203.56 Cr. arising from redemption of NCDs where Assessee did not file the ITR.
Case Title: M/s. L. N. Technocast Pvt. Ltd. Verses Income Tax Officer
The Rajkot ITAT held that Assessing Officer has not erred in computing separate capital gains tax in respect of sale of land (being Long Term Capital Gains) and sale of building / super structure (being Short Term Capital Gains), even if the assessee had made a consolidated sale of both land and building, as part of the same agreement.
Case Title: Kolhapur District Central Co-op Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. verses ITO
Relying on decisions of Supreme Court and High Court, the Pune ITAT directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest income earned from co-operative bank/scheduled bank.
Case Title: Brajesh Narnolia verses Income Tax Officer
The Kolkata ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order upholding disallowance of claim of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10(38) of Income tax Act, 1961 by stating that genuineness of the company is not dependent on the magnitude of profit.
Case Title: DCIT verses M/s Nishit Capinvest Pvt. Ltd.
On not finding any substance in the conclusion of AO that the source of source of income is tainted, the Delhi ITAT confirms the deletion of addition made u/s 68 of Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Rajpal Mehra verses ACIT
While setting aside the order passed by CIT(A) and emphasizing on the safe harbour limit, the Mumbai ITAT held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
No Addition Is Permitted U/s 69 I-T Act Once Source Of Investment Stands Proved: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax verses Rajmohan Appalacharya N. Chakravarty
On finding that none of requirements of section 69 regarding source of investment stands fulfilled, the Mumbai ITATupheld the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO under said provision.
Case Title: Raghuvanshi Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pvt. verses Addl. CIT
On finding that the AO has rightly estimated the gross profit after finding discrepancy in stock, the Rajkot ITATconfirmed the addition made u/s 69B of Income tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Baba Kishan Dasss Education & Charitable Society Verses ITO
On finding lack of opportunities provided to Assessee and in interest of substantial justice, the Chandigarh ITATremanded the matter to the file of CIT(A) to examine the matter of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Income tax Act, 1961 afresh.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax verses M/s. Aarya Developers
On finding that the AO has failed to refer the case to District Valuation Officer u/s 55A of Income Tax Act 1961, the Ahmedabad ITAT deleted the addition made by AO on account of on-money received by the assessee on the sale of duplex pent house.
Case Title: Aarambh Foundation verses CIT
While allowing the Assessee's appeal for registration u/s 12AB, the Indore ITAT held that mere charging a nominal amount for smooth functioning of educational institution and trust cannot called to be a part of commercial activity, and therefore, directed the CIT(E) to grant registration u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: ACIT verses Artemis Medicares Services Ltd
On finding that voluntary disallowance of expense u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is not a ground to treat the assessee as 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1), the Delhi ITAT deleted the addition of chargeable interest u/s 201(1A) as well as the treatment of 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1).
Case Title: ACIT verses Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd.
On finding sufficient evidence for establishing that expenditure was incurred for business expediency, the Delhi ITATdeleted the addition made by AO u/s 36(1)(iii) and u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Rajesh Lakhmshi Nisar verses ITO
While setting aside the order u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by CIT(A), the Mumbai ITAT restored the entire disputed issues to the AO along with the additional evidence to decide the case afresh on merits, so that the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: Reliance Power Ltd verses The Deputy Commissioner of income tax
Quoting the decision of cargo motors private limited versus deputy Commissioner of income tax (145 taxmann.com 641), the Mumbai ITAT reiterated that for purpose of making disallowance of expenses u/s 14A as per rule 8D, only those investments were to be considered which yielded exempt income during the year.
Case Title: Reserve Bank Staff and Officers co-op credit society Ltd. verses Income Tax Officer
While directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of interest income earned by the assessee from the co-operative bank, the Mumbai ITAT clarified that co-operatives bank is also a co-operative society.
Case Title: Mr. & Mrs. S.M. Batha Education Trust verses CIT(Exemption)
On finding that entire proceeding was based on the covenants of the trust deed but not on the actual activities carried out by the appellant trust, the Pune ITAT set aside the order passed by CIT(E) cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Proceedings Under Remand Passed Without Application Of Mind: Delhi ITAT Deletes Addition Made By ITO
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Nayyar verses DCIT
On finding that I-T Authorities had passed the same order which was earlier remanded, without proper application of mind, the New Delhi ITAT deleted the addition made by the ITOs.
Case Title: M/s Shamdarshan Properties Pvt Ltd verses DCIT
While setting aside the order of CIT(A), the Mumbai ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition of annual letting out value (ALV) of the unsold flat u/s 22 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Siddharth Mehta verses ITO
Accepting the explanation given by the assessee that he had received cash on sale of property to be believable which was faithfully deposited in the bank account within a short period, the Delhi ITAT provided relief to the assessee against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax verses Ms Speco Infrastructure
Relying upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, the Mumbai ITAT upheld the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha verses Income Tax Officer
On finding that failure on the part of assessee to comply with the pre-condition for obtaining the deduction cannot be condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts, the Bangalore ITAT ruled that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: M/s. Charvaka Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. verses Income Tax Officer
While considering the definition of 'member' under the Kerala Act, as per which loans given to nominal members would qualify for purpose of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Bangalore ITAT directed the AO to grant relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of deduction under said provision.
Case Title: M/s. Golden Vats Private Limited verses ACIT
The Chennai ITAT held that the impugned revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad-in-law and liable to be quashed, while pointing that when larger issue was pending before CIT(A), the revisionary authority could not exercise jurisdiction u/s 263.
Case Title: ACIT verses M/s. Eurostar Diamonds India Pvt Ltd.
On finding that transfer pricing adjustment made in the Arm's Length Price to be erroneous, the Mumbai ITAT deleted the penalty u/s 271G of Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-furnishing of requisite information u/s 92D.
Case Title: Cathay Pacific airways Limited verses Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Kolkata ITAT recently ruled that service tax is not an amount paid or received for the services rendered by it, when the assessee is only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the Government account.
Case Title: Aka Ausfuhrrkreditgesellschaft Mbh Verses The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
The Delhi ITAT ruled that management fee received by the non-resident taxpayer bank for extending ECB to an Indian entity is not taxable as fee for technical services (FTS) since it partakes the character of interest under Section 2(28A).
Reassessment Proceedings Initiated On Account Of Change Of Opinion Merits To Be Quashed: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Verses East West Pipeline Private Limited
While confirming the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment order, the Mumbai ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of change of opinion formed on re-appraisal of the facts already on record and examined during the regular assessment proceedings.
Case Title: Comstar Mauritius Limited Verses CIT
The Mumbai ITAT upheld the exemption of long-term capital gain granted to the Assessee, holding a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), under Article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA, on sale of equity shares of an Indian company, acquired prior to April 01, 2017.
Case Title: M/s. S.K. Ventures verses DCIT
While remanding the matter for fresh disposal of assessee's claim u/s 80IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the wake of new admissible evidence, the Mumbai ITAT directed the AO to consider the audit report u/s 44AB along with Form 3CB.
Case Title: Murli Industries Ltd. verses DCIT
Referring to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (2021) 126 taxmann.com 132 (SC), the Nagpur ITAT found that all the claims are not part of the Resolution Plan and hence dismissed the appeal filed against the orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre.
Case Title: Ralsons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. verses PCIT
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that once a method of recognizing the revenue adopted by the assessee and accepted by the revenue in the earlier and later years, the same cannot be disturbed for the intervening year i.e. the year in dispute until and unless initial year is made subject to the modification.
Only Obvious & Patent Mistake Can Be Subjected To Rectification Proceedings U/s 154: Bangalore ITAT
Case Title: Town Vividodesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha verses The Income Tax Officer
The Bangalore ITAT held that the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the AO passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, on finding that the issue raised in the appeal is not a mistake apparent on record.
Case Title: Amikrupa Education Trust verses ITO
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that the AO as well as the CIT(A) was not right in making the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 49,80,000/- in bank account during the demonetization period by invoking section 69A of the Income tax Act, as the assessee has fully explained the cash deposits and thus the same cannot be treated as unexplained money.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd verses Deputy CIT
Noting that assessee has also furnished tabular chart along with supporting documents to demonstrate that TDS at appropriate rates has been deducted on such trade discount / commission given to it's agents, the Rajkot ITAT held that assessee cannot be held as in default for not deducting TDS.
Case Title: ACIT verses M/s. Dayal Steel P. Ltd
On finding that AO has rejected the evidences furnished by the assessee relating to bank statement and confirmation of the creditors, without establishing any falsity in the same, the Delhi ITAT deleted the addition made by AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: ITO verses M/s. WinstarEComPvt. Ltd
The Mumbai ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 finding no unexplained cash credit in the books of assessee.
Case Title: Rajkumar Anandchand Jain verses Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
In the interest of natural justice, the Mumbai ITAT restored the appeal of assessee back to the CIT with a direction to the assessee that as soon as the window is available for submission of details by the CIT(A), assessee must submit the detail within the prescribed time which is to be decided on merits of addition under section 56 (2) (x) (b) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Zheng Yuan Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. verses DCIT
On finding that without pointing out anything specific defect on wholesome basis, certain part of the expenses has been discarded on estimate basis, the New Delhi ITAT deleted the addition made by AO.
Case Title: Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd verses Dy CIT
Referring to the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd, the Mumbai ITAT reiterated that for the purpose of levying penalty, the provisions of the Income tax Act to be strictly covered and that merely making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Case Title: Diamond Cares verses CIT (Exemption)
The Kolkata ITAT ruled that simply because a trust/charitable institution has not opted for getting benefits under the Income-tax Act, then such institution is not barred in future from applying from registration/approval under the relevant provisions.
Case Title: DCIT verses M/s. Sewa-THDC
On finding that the assessee society is not the owner of the funds but holding the same in fiduciary capacity, the New Delhi ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition made by AO of the funds received by assessee under “Swach Bharat Abhiyan”.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax verses M/s. Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited
Referring to CBDT Circular no. 10/2014, the Chennai ITAT emphasized that if an undertaking is transferred to another undertaking other than by way of amalgamation and demerger and in other cases, the transferee undertaking shall be eligible for deduction for remaining unexpired period u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: T B Lulla Charitable Foundation verses The CIT Exemption
Finding that the Assessee Trust had applied for registration within the time allowed under the Income Tax Act, the Pune ITAT directed the CIT(E) to treat the application being filed within statutory time after verifying assessee's eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA(4) as per act.
Profit Element Embedded In Unexplained Sales Can Only Be Treated As Undisclosed: Rajkot ITAT
Case Title: ACIT verses Conor Granito P. Ltd
While rejecting the estimation of profit at 12.5% deduced by AO on account of undisclosed sales, the Rajkot ITAT held that there has to be a reasonable basis for applying a particular net profit rate in each case.
Income Tax Not Payable On Services Rendered Abroad By Non-Resident Deputed By Indian Employer: ITAT
Case Title: Devi Dayal Versus The DCIT/ACIT
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income tax is not payable on services rendered abroad by non-residents deputed by Indian employers.
OYO Not Liable To Deduct TDS On Minimum Guarantee Payments Made To Hotels: ITAT
Case Title: M/s Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd. Versus The A.C.I.T
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee OYO is not liable for TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act on the minimum guarantee payments made to hotels.
Case Title: Shyamkumar Madhavdas Chugh Versus The ACIT
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that stamp value as on the date of agreement of sale of the property, in the year 2010 (i.e., Rs. 1.4 Cr), has to be considered for the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: DCIT Versus Cicon Engineers Private Limited
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the TDS cannot be isolatedly taken in any assessment year without offering the corresponding income for taxation.
Possession Of Transport Vehicles Is Sufficient Than Legal Ownership For S. 194C-TDS Exception: ITAT
Case Title: Adhunik Khanan VA Parivahan Theka Sahakari Samiti Limited Versus ITO
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee, the legal owner, is not required to TDS under Section 194C, where a declaration under Section 194C(6) along with a PAN is obtained from the payees who are in possession of the vehicle, though they are not registered owners.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. LEPL Projects Limited
The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the notion of earning 90% profit is unimaginable and is contractual loot under the guise of alleged development activities.
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Income-Tax (TP)
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that delivery costs and warranty expenses are not part of advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenditures.
Case Title: Indian National Congress Verses Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
While holding the argument that an assessee is entitled to a stay on the recovery proceedings on payment of 20% of the demand during the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal, as too general, the New Delhi ITAT dismisses the stay application of Indian National Congress treating it as meritless.
Case Title: Balduhak Co-operative Agriculture Service Society verses ITO
Finding that that the assessee is a Cooperative Society (and not a co-operative bank) which was engaged in providing short term credit facility to its members, the Chandigarh ITAT ruled that interest income has been earned on deposits placed with a co-operative society and duly eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income tax Act.
Case Title: Bagora Developers vs ACIT
The Indore ITAT upheld the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income tax Act as the assessee did not cooperate during the assessment proceedings.
Case Title: Vishram Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited verses ITO
On finding that no addition is made based on the reasons to believe recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment, the New Delhi ITAT quashed the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961
Case Title: DCIT verses Umang Hiralal Thakkar
Emphasizing that the condition of filing the return of income within the due date is mandatory in nature for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income tax Act, the Ahmedabad ITAT confirmed the disallowance made by the AO under the said provision.
Case Title: Bharat Agro Industries verses DCIT
The New Delhi ITAT ruled that once AO has accepted the sales made in cash, then source of cash deposits ought to have been treated as explained, and no addition is permitted u/s 68 of the Income tax Act.
Case Title: Bharat Engineering Construction Co. Pvt Ltd versus ACIT
The Chennai ITAT has remanded the matter to the AO for reconsideration of disallowance u/s 80IA(4), after finding that the AO has not examined the agreement entered into by the assessee with various government and semi-government departments before invoking such disallowance.
Case Title: Brightstar Vincom Pvt Ltd versus ITO
Finding that the AO without examining any of the documents, simply made the addition u/s 68 on account of failure of assessee to produce share subscribers, the Kolkata ITAT held that AO cannot take adverse inference without pointing out discrepancies or insufficiency in the evidences and without examining statement of the directors of the subscriber companies.
Case Title: Canara Bank vs ACIT
The Mumbai ITAT restored the matter back to the file of AO to consider the lower deduction of TDS certificates and give opportunity to the assessee to explain the case.
Case Title: C. Doctor & Co. Pvt Ltd verses ACIT
The Mumbai ITAT recently clarified that mere deposit of employee's contribution before due date of filing return of income as per Section 139 of Income tax Act, will not make it eligible for deduction.
Disallowance Of Claim U/s 80P By CPC Prior To Apr 01, 2021 Is Beyond Its Jurisdiction: Kolkata ITAT
Case Title: Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. verses Income Tax Officer
On finding that the alleged disallowance by CPC is beyond its jurisdiction as the adjustment towards deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act came to CPC only from Apr 01, 2021, the Kolkata ITAT interfered with the action of CPC in denying the deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Sarda Mission Sevasram verses CIT
Irrespective of the delay occurred in filing fresh application for final approval u/s 80G(5) of Income tax Act, the Kolkata ITAT directed the CIT(E) to treat the application of assessee for final registration as 'filed within the time limit prescribed' and also pointed that the time consumed by the assessee in filing the revised application will not be taken into consideration.
Case Title: RSWM Ltd. versus DCIT
On finding that the person from who's possession seized document is recovered, was not subject to cross examination of assessee and no opportunity of cross examination was given to assessee, theNew Delhi ITAT deleted the addition made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Satya Kiran Healthcare Private Ltd. versus ITO
On finding that CIT(A) has failed to consider all submission of assessee and evidences placed on record, the New Delhi ITAT restored the matter back to file of AO for fresh adjudication regarding the TDS deduction u/s 194J or u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the payments made towards maintenance of X-Ray machine and CVC machine.
Case Title: Sanjay Kukreja verses ACIT
While holding that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration, the New Delhi ITAT directed the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Santiniketan Sishutirtha verses Commissioner of Income Tax
Pointing that applications are to be considered on merit for grant of registration, the Kolkata ITAT relegate the issue to the file of CIT(E) with a direction that application in Form No. 10AB should be construed as if filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Tata International Ltd vs ACIT
The Mumbai ITAT clarified that interest rates on FCNR accounts maintained in foreign currency are different and dependent upon the currency in question. They are not dependent upon the PLR rate, which is applicable to loans in Indian rupee.
Case Title: Income-tax Officer verses Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Sahakari Sangha Niyamita
The Bangalore ITAT set aside the order passed by CIT(A) for providing relief u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961 and redirect the case back to the file of AO for reconsideration of the genuineness of the deposit during demonetization by the assessee.
Case Title: Padam J. Challani verses ACIT
On finding that lower authorities had erred in computing the estimated gain on silver articles, the Chennai ITAT deleted the addition made by CIT(A) and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Soyuz Trading Co. Ltd verses DCIT
Abiding by the principle of judicial hierarchy and binding precedent, the Kolkata ITAT directed the AO to consider only the investments yielding tax exempt income for computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules 1962.
Case Title: DCIT verses Suboli Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
While deleting the addition on account of unexplained investment, the New Delhi ITAT clarified that genuineness and veracity of the party cannot be doubted merely because the cold storage rent was received in cash, when the assessee is only a custodian of the goods received by it for storing in its storage.
Case Title: Udayan Grover verses National Faceless Appeal Centre
The Mumbai ITAT pointed out that the AO and the CIT(A) has applied the concept of human probabilities to hold the scrip as penny stock without bringing on record as to how the assessee is involved in any of the scrupulous activities or directly linked to one of the persons who has involved in manipulation/rigging of share prices, entry operator or exit provider.
Case Title: DCIT verses Umang Hiralal Thakkar
Emphasizing that the condition of filing the return of income within the due date is mandatory in nature for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income tax Act, the Ahmedabad ITAT confirmed the disallowance made by the AO under the said provision.
Case Title: Ultimate Creations verses ACIT
Finding that no defects were pointed out and the books of accounts have been accepted, the New Delhi ITAT ruled that the assessee having given the explanation which was plausible explanation which stands verified in inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be rejected arbitrarily by indulging into surmises.
Case Title: Vishram Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited verses ITO
On finding that no addition is made based on the reasons to believe recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment, theNew Delhi ITAT quashed the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Brandix Apparel India Private Limited vs ACIT
The Visakhapatnam ITAT directed the TPO to consider the impact of working capital adjustments of the assessee company and appropriate material differences with that of the comparable companies.
Case Title: Altisource Business Solutions Private Ltd vs DCIT
Emphasizing on the necessity of credit period, the Bangalore ITAT remitted the matter of ALP adjustment made towards notional interest on outstanding receivables in case of assessee company engaged in software development and IT enabled services.
Case Title: Aurobindo Pharma Limited verses ACIT
The Hyderabad ITAT dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by assessee for modifying Tribunal's order on TP adjustment qua interest on trade receivables for AY 2015-16.
Case Title: Mukesh Harilal Mehta verses Income Tax Officer
While overturning the findings of CIT(A) that the assessee does not satisfy the condition laid down u/s 54 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for claiming deduction, the Mumbai ITAT directed the AO to re-compute the capital gains, if any, after allowing deduction u/s 54 as claimed by the assessee.
Case Title: Ms. Padma Rao verses C.I.T
While clarifying the difference between profession and business, the Delhi ITAT reiterated that compensation received under mutual agreement for non-renewal of contract cannot form basis of addition u/s 28(ii)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Case Title: MSK Project (India) JV Ltd. verses ACIT
On finding that the order of the AO is not a simple order giving effect to the order of the CIT passed u/s 263, the Ahmedabad ITAT restored the issue back to the AO to verify the facts of the case and thereafter pass an order in accordance with the directions of the CIT in his order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Mayur Kanjibhai Shah verses Income Tax Officer
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the addition made by AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on finding that retracted statement of the person representing the said firm, who otherwise neither named nor specified the role and also not connected the assessee specifically.
Case Title: DCIT verses Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.
On finding that CIT(A) was justified in adopting the valuation given by the DVO and has rightly considered the safe harbour rule of 5% as per third proviso to section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Kolkata ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under the head of “Capital gains”.
Case Title: Daya Rani verses CIT
While allowing the appeal of assessee in respect of the fact that whether the PCIT had validly assumed his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both in law and on facts, theNew Delhi ITAT held that the PCIT erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On finding that the assessee trust is not into the business of publishing, printing, and subscription of the books as the same is not the main object of the assessee trust, the Mumbai ITAT upheld the decision of CIT(A) that the assessee's trust is eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Addition Made U/s 69C Based On Time Barred Assessment Is Not Sustainable: Kolkata ITAT
Case Title: Dhanterash Sales Pvt. Ltd verses ITO
On finding that there is no evidence on the file either direct or indirect or even circumstantial to show that the order was passed by the AO on or before the last date of limitation for the same, the Kolkata ITAT held that the assessment order passed by the AO is time-barred and deleted the addition made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Dimexon Diamonds Ltd vs ACIT
The Mumbai ITAT ruled that as per Explanation to section 92B of the Income tax Act, the transaction of business restructuring shall be considered an international transaction, irrespective of the fact whether it has a bearing on the profit, income, losses, or assets of such enterprises.
Case Title: Corteva Agriscience Services India Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT
The Hyderabad ITAT upheld the CIT's revision order citing inconsistency in treatment of forex loss without plausible reason for deviation in case of Corteva Agriscience Services India Pvt. Ltd engaged in providing sourcing, finance including evaluation of prospective customers and various other services to group companies.
Case Title: ACIT verses Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
While deciding on ALP adjustments qua export of goods to AEs and guarantee commission in case of a pharma company, engaged in manufacturing and marketing of formulations in India, the Mumbai ITAT accepted foreign AE as tested party.
Foreign-AEs Being Least Complex Entities Can Be Accepted As Tested Party, Confirms Kolkata ITAT
Case Title: ACIT vs ITC Infotech India Limited
The Kolkata ITAT accepted foreign AE as tested party, and deleted the ALP adjustments qua export of software services and receipt of account management charges in case of assessee, engaged in providing a wide range of IT solutions.
Warranty Costs Are Not Part Of AMP Expenditure, Clarifies Bangalore ITAT
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited verses CIT
The Bangalore ITAT ruled on treatment of share-based compensation (SBC), depreciation & amortization as operating expense and inclusion of delivery charges & warranty expenses in AMP expenditure.
Case Title: Rakhmabai Mhatre verses Income Tax Officer
On finding that AO has not computed capital gains by adopting the stamp duty value, the Mumbai ITAT restored the matter back to the file of the AO to follow the mandate of provision u/s 50(C)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: M/s Manu Stock Broking Private Limited verses ACIT
On finding that addition which is not based on the reasons for reopening is un-sustainable, the Mumbai ITAT deleted the addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Dahisar Traders verses ITO
Finding that the issue in question has been agitated for the first time before the Bench and the same has been covered by a previous decision under homogenous facts, the Kolkata ITAT remitted back the matter to the file of AO for further adjudication de-novo both in legal as well as factual aspect of the assessee.
Case Title: ACIT verses Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
The Ahmedabad ITAT quashed reopening proceedings finding that there was no tangible material available with the AO to form a reason to believe that the income of assessee has escaped assessment.
Case Title: Anamika Kala Sangam verses Deputy CIT
On perusal of the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account, the Kolkata ITAT opined that if the assessee is given deduction of expenditure incurred during the year, which it is entitled to, then there will be a net loss against gross receipts during the year, which interalia included receipt of membership and donation from members.
Case Title: Anjana Foundation Vadodara verses AO
Referring to the decision in case of Association of Indian Panel board Manufacturer v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2023] 157, the Ahmedabad ITAT reiterated that filing of Form 10B along with the return of income is only a procedural requirement and cannot be treated as mandatory requirement for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Income tax Act and even if filed at a later stage the assessee is entitled to exemption claimed.
Case Title: Arcserve India Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. verses ACIT
Finding that the assessee had arrangement with its AE for billing cost plus 15%, which has been duly billed during the year and entire depreciation cost plus 15% has been billed to the AE, the New Delhi ITAT allowed the depreciation claimed by assessee.
Case Title: Konkan Education Society Sevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. verses Income Tax Officer
On finding that the views adopted by the tax authorities are not in conformity with legal position and binding judicial precedents, the Pune ITAT set-aside the impugned order passed by the AO and reversed the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Manphool Singh verses Income Tax Officer
While allowing the appeal against the order passed u/s 271B of the Income tax Act, the Jaipur ITAT held that provision of section 273B gives power to the taxing authority not to impose the penalty if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for failure to get the books of accounts audited and directed the AO to delete such addition.
Case Title: M/s A.P Knit Fab verses DCIT
Finding that the difference in stock found out by I-T Authorities has no independent identity and is part & parcel of entire stock, the Chandigarh ITAT refused to treat such difference as undeclared business income and clarified that it cannot be said that there is an undisclosed asset which existed independently.
Case Title: Aashirvad Villa Limited verses ITO
The Kolkata ITAT held the intimation passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) and proceeding on such intimation to be bad in law, as the same was passed without granting any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: ACIT verses M/s Ace Trexim Pvt Ltd
The Kolkata ITAT recently clarified that mere information regarding transfer of funds is no basis to conduct reassessment once the source of such transfer was sufficiently established through the banking channel.
Case Title: AL A S Real Estate and Developers Private Ltd Verses Pr. CIT
While holding the revision-order passed by PCIT as invalid, the Indore ITAT recently clarified that I-T authorities cannot punish the assessee by merely saying that the payee has not filed income-tax return.
Case Title: DCIT verses Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel
On finding no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A), the Ahmedabad ITAT confirmed that rights held by the assessee as a Confirming Party in the Sale Deed is a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) and liable for LTCG and the assessee is also eligible to claim deduction u/s. 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.