ITAT Weekly Round-Up: 14 To 20 July 2024
Mariya Paliwala
21 July 2024 7:10 AM GMT
Case Title: Add More Real Estate Developers LLP verses The Asst. Director of Income-tax
The Mumbai ITAT held that the AO has no jurisdiction to make any adjustment in final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) before thirty days of receiving any response from the assessee on basis of intimation issued u/s 143(1).
Case Title: M/s Sankpal Developers vs Income Tax Officer
The Mumbai ITAT held that merely because the transactions are made through a banking channel does not itself prove the creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction.
Additions Can't Be Made In Cases Of Unabated Assessments Without Incriminating Material: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mansha Agencies Pvt. Ltd
The Mumbai ITAT held that no addition can be made by AO in respect of completed/unabated assessments, in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A.
'Reasons To Believe' For Reopening Must Based On Credible Information : Kolkata ITAT
Case Title: Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd verses Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
While quashing the reopening proceedings, the Kolkata ITAT held that any allegation of escapement of income must be backed by information expressing 'reason to believe' and such belief requires to be based on some credible or relevant material.
Case Title: Anil Champalal Jain verses ITO
Finding that cash sales as part of the trading result offered for taxation by the assessee is not disputed, the Mumbai ITAT held that addition is permitted on account of cash deposit during demonetization on mere allegation that books of account are manipulated without its rejection.
Case Title: Arun Babulal Shah verses CIT Appeal NFAC
Finding that the genuineness of loan transactions is not verified by the Income tax Authorities, the Mumbai ITAT held that no additions are permitted on account on unsecured loans by disregarding the confirmations & identity of loan creditors produced by assessee.
Case Title: Laxman Gore Shreshtha verses DCIT
The Mumbai ITAT there is no question of concealment of fact when the assessee had itself declared the income in its return which was assumed by the AO to be an escaped income.
Case Title: North Eastern Social Research Centre verses CIT(Exemption)
Referring to the decision in case of Anudip Foundation for Social Welfare vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata – ITA No. 1341/Kol/2023, the Kolkata ITAT held that assessee will not be deprived of the benefit of Sec 80G due to technical errors occurred in making application because of the confusion and misunderstanding on in properly interpreting the relevant provision.
Case Title: QAI India Ltd. verses DCIT
The New Delhi ITAT held that when the taxpayer company has utilized the service of a company outside India and payment has also been made outside India, then taxpayer company would not be liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 195.
Case Title: Mysore Bhaskara Pankaja verses ACIT
While emphasizing that the obligation of granting approval acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO, the New Delhi ITAT held that approval granted u/s 153D should necessarily reflect due application of mind and if the same is subjected to judicial scrutiny, it should stand for itself and should be self-defending
Case Title: Akansha Gupta verses ACIT
The New Delhi ITAT held that for purposes of assessment u/s 153C, the date of recording of satisfaction of AO will be deemed date for the possession of seized documents.
Case Title: Shri Rajagopal Saravanan verses ACIT
Referring to the decision of Madars High Court in case of P.V. Kalyanasundaram, the Chennai ITAT held that once the assessee had denied payments made by it, then he cannot be expected to prove the negative.
Case Title: Shri Anurag Lakshman Pande verses DCIT
The New Delhi ITAT held that the assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of carry forward of long-term capital loss on sale of residential property against long term capital gain computed on sale of commercial property.
Case Title: ITO verses Appliances Forever
The New Delhi ITAT held that a business man deposits consideration from sale of his products on respective dates of sales as per his needs and prudence, and therefore, the AO cannot tax the receipts and income embedded therein together.
Case Title: Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. versus ITO
Finding that the TPO did not present compelling evidence to establish that the guarantee fee was unwarranted, the Ahmedabad ITAT held that benefits derived, as seen in lower interest rates and favorable operating margins, substantiate the transaction's arm's length nature.
Case Title: Nihon Parkerizing (India) Pvt. Ltd verses DCIT
Referring to the decision in case of Gillette India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, the New Delhi ITAT held that once assessee had given details about inventory written off along with ledger codes, then assessee would be eligible for deduction on written-off obsolete inventory.
Case Title: M/s Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited verses ACIT
The Chennai ITAT held that the AO must pass a draft assessment order to the eligible assessee in case he proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee.
