SHUBHANKAR NAYAK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41 (2)(5), BKC

ITA 4524/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 June 2024AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide material demonstrating compliance with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with the provisions of Rule 37BA of the Rules.

What were the facts?

An NRI assessee claimed a refund after filing his return of income, which included a long-term capital loss from the sale of a residential flat. The flat was initially invested in solely by the assessee but was held jointly with his father, and 50% was later gifted to his wife. Upon sale by his wife and father, TDS was deducted in their names, but the assessee offered the income for tax and claimed the TDS credit, which was denied by the CPC and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, who made the sole investment in a property sold by his wife and father, is entitled to claim TDS credit deducted in their names for the capital gains offered in his own income tax return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 199(1),Section 194-IA,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 64(1)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 26/10/2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer, CPC erred in disallowing TDS credit of Rs.9,48,696/-.

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT Appeal ignored the provisions of section 199(1) read w

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194-IA

All 76 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →