ITAT Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024 - PART I

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 Stock Valuation DifferenceCase Title: Ethiraj Hotel Mart Versus DCITThe 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.Indian Chamber Of Commerce Entitled To Claim Exemption In Respect Of Receipts From Seminars And Conferences: ITATCase Title: Indian Chamber of Commerce Versus DCITThe 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.Kolkata ITAT Deletes Addition Made Based On Third-Party Statement Who Was Not Allowed To Be Cross- Examined By AssesseeCase 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.CIT(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Enhance Income U/S 251(1) By Disallowing ESOP Expenses In Revised Return If AO Has Not Dealt With It: Mumbai ITATCase Title: Edelweiss Asset Management Ltd verses ACITWhile 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.Right To Broadcast Live Events Is Not 'Copyright', Hence Payment Made In Relation Thereto Cannot Be Taxed As 'Royalty' U/S 9(1)(VI), Clarifies Delhi ITATCase Title: Lex Sportel Vision Pvt Ltd Verses Income Tax OfficerEmphasizing 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'.Revisionary Powers U/S 263 Can't Be Exercised For Directing Fuller Inquiry Once Plausible View Taken By AO After Inquiry: Mumbai ITATCase 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.Taxpayer Staying In India For Less Than 182 Days As Per Exp 1(A) To Sec 6(1) Of I-T Act, Entitles To 'Non-Resident' Status: Mumbai ITATCase Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax verses Nishant KanodiaWhile 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).Assessment Order Passed Beyond Sec 144C(4) Is Time Barred If Objections To Draft Order Were Filed After Expiry Of Limitation As Per Sec 144C(2): Delhi ITATCase Title: Mavenir UK Holdings verses ACITNoticing 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.No Escapement Of Income By Singaporean Entity On Repatriating Rs.203.56 Cr. Arising From Redemption Of NCDs: ITATCase...

ITAT Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024 - PART I

Mariya Paliwala

Tags