Practical Knowledge With CAAJ

असेसिंग ऑफिसर यह दिखाने के लिए निर्धारिती पर पूरा बोझ नहीं डाल सकता है असेसिंग ऑफिसर यह दिखाने के लिए निर्धारिती पर पूरा बोझ नहीं डाल सकता है कि फॉर्म 26एएस में दिखाई गई रसीदें किसके हाथों में घोषित की गई हैं क्योंकि निर्धारिती फॉर्म नंबर 26एएस में दिखाई गई रसीदों के प्राप्तकर्ताओं को समझाने के लिए जिम्मेदार नहीं है। निर्धारण अधिकारी को भुगतानकर्ता से भुगतानकर्ता का विवरण पूछना चाहिए था जिसे भुगतानकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान किया गया है जिस पर वह स्रोत पर कर काट सकता है। इसलिए, केवल 26AS पर आधारित जोड़ को हटा दिया गया है। इस मामले में निर्धारिती संतुष्ट था कि उसके पास विचाराधीन वर्ष के दौरान कोई रसीद नहीं थी और भुगतानकर्ता कंपनियों द्वारा अनजाने में निर्धारिती कंपनी के पैन के खिलाफ टीडीएस काट लिया गया था।

दिल्ली के उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि आयकर विभाग न तो निर्धारिती से रोके गए दिल्ली के उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि आयकर विभाग न तो निर्धारिती से रोके गए कर की मांग कर सकता है जिसे कटौतीकर्ता/नियोक्ता द्वारा केंद्र सरकार के खाते में जमा नहीं किया गया है, और न ही यह भविष्य के रिफंड के खिलाफ समायोजित कर सकता है, यदि कोई हो, क्योंकि मांग का समायोजन भविष्य की धनवापसी राशि के विरुद्ध कर की एक अप्रत्यक्ष वसूली, जो दिनांक 1-6-2015 के निर्देश के साथ पठित धारा 205 के तहत वर्जित है, जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से कहा गया है कि डिडक्टी/निर्धारिती को कर का भुगतान करने की आवश्यकता नहीं हो सकती है जिसे उसकी आय से स्रोत पर काटा गया है।

The penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act is not levied  The penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act is not levied when the assessee was under bonafide belief that he was not liable to get the books of accounts audited as the commission income was below the threshold limit and it was the first year of the business venture taken up by the assessee therefore the assessee’s case is covered under section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessing Officer cannot put the entire burden on the assessee to show The Assessing Officer cannot put the entire burden on the assessee to show in whose hands the receipts shown in Form 26AS has been declared because the assessee is not responsible to explain the recipients of the receipts shown in Form No. 26AS. The Assessing Officer should have asked the payer, details of the payee to whom payments have been made by the payer on which it could deduct tax at source. Therefore, addition solely based on 26AS is deleted. In this case the assessee was contented that it did not have any receipts during the year under consideration and TDS has been deducted by the payer companies inadvertently against the PAN of the assessee company.

Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked simply Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked simply because the PCIT has a different opinion in the matter. If the Assessing Officer acts in accordance with the law and makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately.

The ITAT bench of Amritsar has condoned the huge delay of 9 years on the ground  The ITAT bench of Amritsar has condoned the huge delay of 9 years on the ground that there is confusion in relation to the service of intimation u/s 143(1) of the assessee and department is also not able to submit proof for any other mode of service of intimation to the assessee. The contention of the assessee was that the delay was caused by his failure to receive a notification. It may have been sent to the assessee’s email, which was duly maintained by the accountant, and the accountant had not informed the assessee. Without proper opportunity, the deduction under Section 80IB was rejected in the processing of the return under Section 143(1).

The ITAT bench of Cuttack has held that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) The ITAT bench of Cuttack has held that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the penalty was imposed in respect of any addition where the High Court has admitted the appeal on substantial question of law, then the sustainability of the addition itself becomes debatable. The tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karanataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Dr. Harsha N Billiangady, 379 ITR 529 (Kar).

The ITAT Pune bench has held that where the assessee had claimed excess loss by way of revised return   The ITAT Pune bench has held that where the assessee claimed higher loss through revised return but did not furnish the acknowledgement of return (ITR-V) to the CPC at the material time but filed the same later and raised a request to condone the delay, which is still pending, the return of income cannot be treated invalid and thus, revised return filed subsequently, within stipulated period claiming loss at a higher level would be eligible to carry forward.

The Chennai bench of ITAT has held that no addition could be made for deposit  The Chennai bench of ITAT has held that no addition could be made for deposit in NRE account when the assessee had no source of income in India. In this case, a non-resident assessee has deposited money in NRE account which was withdrawn by assessee’s parents in India. The same has been sourced to deposit the same in another NRO account from time to time. However, the AO rejected assessee’s explanation by stating that the cash was not re-deposited within a reasonable time frame. Accordingly, the AO worked out peak credit and added the same to the income of the assessee.

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has held that no disallowance shall be made to the assessee  The Delhi Bench of ITAT has held that no disallowance shall be made to the assessee in regards to the chargeable sum paid by the assessee to a foreign company without deduction of tax because the second proviso clause (i) of Section 40(a) has been inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2020. The said proviso essentially provides that where the relevant income has been declared by the payee and tax thereon has been paid by him then no disallowance shall be made in the hands of the payer. This proviso is similar to the second proviso to clause (ia) of s. 40(a) which was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2013. Both these provisos were inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence they had to be given retrospective effect.

The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against Jetair Pvt Ltd The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against Jetair Pvt Ltd, a group entity of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, by rejecting the revenue department's contentions that payment of commission to Jetair, who is a sales agent of Jet Airways, at a rate lower than what it charges other unrelated airlines on domestic and international ticket sales, was a colorable device used to evade tax. Because Jet Airways is a loss-making enterprise, the revenue department argued that paying commission at a lower rate reduced the group's overall tax liability, benefiting the entire group. The Court hold that charging a lower commission is a business decision and cannot be called a colorable device/mechanism and noted that the fact that Jet India Pvt Ltd is a loss-making company is not a valid criterion to determine income escapement.

The High Court of Rajasthan held that where the high court remanded the matter to the ITAT  The High Court of Rajasthan held that where the high court remanded the matter to the ITAT for specific direction, the ITAT cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Authority. Instead of remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority for recording the finding with regard to that specific direction, the tribunal may seek the assistance of the Revenue Authority.

The Delhi bench of ITAT has quashed the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) The Delhi bench of ITAT has quashed the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) where the Assessing Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction and made disallowances u/s 37(1)/40A(3) of the Act which were not the items for consideration in the limited scrutiny. In this case, the case was selected for limited scrutiny involving the issues of substantial increase in capital and higher interest expenditure against new capital added in work-in-progress or addition made to fixed assets. However, the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of business expenditure and u/s 40A(3) in respect of cash paid for purchase.

The Delhi bench of the ITAT has held that where the specific limb  The Delhi bench of the ITAT has held that where the specific limb has not been identified as to whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is an omnibus notice, and failure to specify the limb of the notice renders the penalty proceedings invalid.

The income tax department has stated that from the assessment year 2023-24 onwards The income tax department has stated that from the assessment year 2023-24 onwards, Form 26AS will only display details of tax collected at source (TCS) and tax deducted at source (TDS). In addition to TDS and TCS, Form 26AS now shows the details of advance tax paid by assesses, as well as self-assessment tax, income tax refund, and turnover as per GSTR-3B. These details are now available on the income tax e-filing website in the annual information statement (AIS).

The Bangalore Bench of the ITAT has held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) The Bangalore Bench of the ITAT has held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was bound by the binding decision of the jurisdictional high court, where the AO was situated by placing reliance on the decision of Mahadev Cold Storage Vs. AO, ITA No.41 & 42/Agr/2021 wherein it was held that although a centralized NFAC had been created by the notifications, it had to be ensured that where an appellate order was passed by the NFAC, the decision of the jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over the AO should be followed and applied by the NFAC. Relief should not be refused to the taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court and the decision rendered by jurisdictional high court was binding not only on the ITAT but also on the NFAC (notwithstanding that it is was sitting in Delhi)

The Income Tax e-Portal has added a new feature that allows taxpayers The Income Tax e-Portal has added a new feature that allows taxpayers to respond to any ITBA notice/document DIN that is not linked to a PAN/TAN or Notice under Section 133(6) where the user does not have an e-filing account with the entity to which the notice is issued. The new feature also enables taxpayers to view the submitted response or add new response to any ITBA notice/document DIN not linked to PAN/TAN or Notice u/s 133(6) where user may not have e-filing account of the entity to which notice is issued. To see the tutorial kindly follow the link.

The ITAT bench of Bengaluru has held that in order to invoke the provision of section 69 of the Income Tax Act  The ITAT bench of Bengaluru has held that in order to invoke the provision of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, it is sine qua non that the assessee must have made investments which are not recorded in the books of account. The factum of the assesses having made investment should be first proved by the AO, only then the burden shifts on the assessee to prove the source of investment. Such investment outside the books of account must be positively proved by the AO and not only inferred from the attending facts. If such an investment outside the books is not proved, the assessee cannot be called upon to prove the source of such a hypothetical investment. 

The Delhi bench of the ITAT has held that payments received The Delhi bench of the ITAT has held that payments received from foreign companies on account of business support services cannot be treated as fees for technical services under the India-Netherlands DTAA because Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA reveals that it does not include managerial services within fees for technical services.

The ITAT bench of Ahmedabad has deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) The ITAT bench of Ahmedabad has deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that there was no will full attempt to conceal the income because the assessee has rectified the income while filing the return under section 148 of the Act and also paid due tax on such income. The tribunal place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. reported in 144 taxmann.com 165 where the Hon’ble court held that in no penalty can be imposed where the assessee made bona fide mistake and corrected the same on realization of mistake.

The ITAT bench of Ahmedabad has deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) The ITAT bench of Ahmedabad has deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that there was no will full attempt to conceal the income because the assessee has rectified the income while filing the return under section 148 of the Act and also paid due tax on such income. The tribunal place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. reported in 144 taxmann.com 165 where the Hon’ble court held that in no penalty can be imposed where the assessee made bona fide mistake and corrected the same on realization of mistake.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot offset TDS  The Delhi High Court ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot offset TDS that has not been deposited by the deductor (employer) in the Central Government Account against the refund due and payable to the assessee because it is prohibited by Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the assessee raised issue before the court that the outstanding demand for AY 2012-13, raised due to TDS, was not deposited by the employer with the Central Government, and that the refund due to him for AY 2015-16 was not paid to him, but was instead set-off against the said demand.

The Calcutta High Court has held that where there is a discrepancy between The Calcutta High Court has held that where there is a discrepancy between the income figure in the TDS certificate and the income figure in Form 26AS, the assessee's income should be taken as shown in Form 26AS because Form 26AS is generated by the Income-tax department and the assessee has no control over it; thus, the AO should be given TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS. 

The ITAT bench Jaipur has held that the penal provision of section 271AAB The ITAT bench Jaipur has held that the penal provision of section 271AAB, as well as the provision of section 115BBE, cannot be invoked in the case of search addition and amount declared under section 132(4) accepted by the assessee and offered in the return of income filed because the intention of legislature is to segregate the taxation of income declared in search with that of the other amount found and disclosed by assessee in other then search cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed the reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14  The Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed the reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14 and admitted batch of petition for the final hearing after decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal vs. UOI & Others as well as the Gujarat High Court in the case of Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO on the ground that the alternative remedy will not operate as an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition as the jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act  The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied in cases of compulsory acquisition of a capital asset (land or building, or both), because there is no requirement for payment of stamp duty in such vesting of property. As a result, there was no need for the stamp valuation authority to assess the property's valuation.

The interest under section 234A and 234B cannot be levied beyond The interest under section 234A and 234B cannot be levied beyond the date of self-assessment tax paid as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Prannoy Roy 309 ITR 231 that the interest under section 234A of the Act on default in furnishing return of income shall be payable only on the amount of tax that has not been deposited before the due date of filing of the income-tax return for the relevant assessment year. The impugned provisions are only compensatory in nature and no part thereof is penal in character.