This weekly roundup analytically summarizes key stories related to the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) reported on Taxscan.in during the previous week of November 15-20, 2021.

The Delhi Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT), while denying the exemption from income tax on false long-term capital gains (LTCG), held that it was incumbent on to the assessed to prove the authenticity of the trading of shares leading to a gain LTCG. Judicial Member’s Coram, Kuldip Singh, and Accountant Member, Prashant Maharishi have ruled that a genuine transaction must be proven to be genuine by the person claiming in substance the same thing and not by the income as supported by the appraised. , because once the appraised has been called upon to prove the authenticity of the negotiation of the actions leading to the LTCG gain, it falls to him for the burden that he does not pay.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT), the Delhi bench ruled that the interest loan received from the sister company to meet the increased requirement of working capital for orders export does not attract deemed dividend provisions under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench composed of Judicial Member Mr. Amit Shukla and Accountant Member BRR Kumar relied on the Supreme Court ruling in the Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal Vs. CIT case and some High Court judgments in which the courts have granted a taxpayer relief.

Bangalore’s Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that interest paid on a bank loan cannot be subject to withholding tax (TDS) and, therefore, the dismissal under section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

While welcoming the appraiser’s plea, Accountant Member BR Bhaskaran and Judicial Member Beena Pillai held that interest paid on bank loans is not subject to the TDS deduction and therefore disallowance u / s 40 (a) (ia) is not required.

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the commission expenses claimed by the appraised cannot be rejected for the simple reason that the appraised could not provide the confirmation letters from beneficiaries. While deciding in favor of the Evaluated, Judicial Member Mr. Partha Sarathi Chaudhury and Accountant Member Mr. Inturi Rama Rao observed that the issue in this appeal concerns the allocation of commission expenses of Rs.42, 53.300 / -.

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appeals Tribunal (ITAT) ordered the Income Tax Department to reconsider the claim for unrecoverable advances to employees and vendors as a business loss in under section 37 (1) rws 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

While ruling on the second appeal filed by the assessed company, Judicial Member Mr. George George K and Accountant Member BR Bhaskaran concluded that the claim made by the assessed person did not relate to a bad debt u / s 36 (1) (vii) of the ITAct, but under the provisions of Article 28 of the ITAct as a commercial or commercial loss.

The Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT), headquarters in Bangalore, while allowing an appeal filed by the Dr. Chandrashekar Foundation, found that if the cost of the assets acquired from the loan funds had already been allowed as an application of income, then loan repayment should not be allowed as an application. While setting aside the order of the first appeals authority, ITAT vice president NV Vasudevan and accountant member MBR Bhaskaran changed the direction of CIT (Exemptions) and asked the AO to consider again the request.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan without advertising. follow us on Telegram for quick updates.



Source link