ITAT Judgments judiciary-2

USA is not a person or authority under the Indian Income Tax Act

Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

USA is not a person or authority under the Indian Income Tax Act, subsidy or grant received from it does not attract Explanation 10 to section 43(1), extraction of coal from mines and processing thereof tantamounts to production...

Read More

ITAT explains theory of ‘preponderance of probability’, rejection of books and best judgement assessment

M/s. GTC Industries Limited Tobacco House, Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

In situations like this case, one may fall into realm of “preponderance of probability” where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected....

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied in respect of an addition not having been made in quantum assessment

JRK Auto Parts (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

In this Question arose for consideration was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied in respect of an addition not having been made in quantum/assessment proceedings and it was held that Imposition of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is strictly circumscribed to addition which has been ma...

Read More

Reimbursement of Actual Expenditure does not attract Section 194C & 40(a)(ia)

ACIT (TDS) Vs St. Mary's Rubbers Private Limited (ITAT Cochin)

Ld. AR submitted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Deepak Bhargawa in I.T.A. No.343/Del/2012 dated 13.11.2014 had clearly held that section 194C would not be applicable for reimbursement of expenditure....

Read More

Tribunal cannot condone delay in filing Miscellaneous Application

DCIT Vs Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

The Tribunal has been given power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period as per Section 253(5). However, this Tribunal is not enshrined with such powers in respect of a miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax ...

Read More

ITAT clarifies period of limitation for filing rectification application U/s. 254(2)

Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expre...

Read More

No TDS required to to be deducted on Reimbursement of expenses against separate bills to C&F agents

ACIT (TDS) Vs St. Mary's Rubbers Private Limited (ITAT Cochin)

Reimbursement of expenses against separate bills to C&F agents doesn't require TDS and hence no dis allowance u/s 40(a)(1a)... ITAT Cochin bench held in the case of St. Mary's Rubbers dismissing revenue's appeal...

Read More

ITAT – taking virtual reality a bit too seriously ?

ABB FZ - LLC, Bangalore Vs. Dy.DIT , Bangalore (ITAT Bangalore)

A reader should be able to come to his / her own conclusion by applying the legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements to the facts of the case. While re-producing any portion of legislative enactment or judicial pronouncement, it is para phrased and emphasis is supplied by way of underline....

Read More

Section 50C cannot be applied if valuation difference is less than 10%

M/s. John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)

A welcome decision of Mumbai ITAT in respect of the charging of capital gain on the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee...

Read More

Amount offered for tax in earlier year cannot be taxed in subsequent year

Fino Paytech Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

In view of the undisputed fact that a sum of Rs. 18,63,61,346/- was offered to tax though it was originally debited to the profit and loss account during the AY 2011-12,and because of the cost reimbursement agreement between the assessee and the parent entity on 18.05.2012 pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 13,21,53,000/- and Rs. 5,44,13,490/...

Read More
Page 1 of 42312345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,453)
Company Law (3,347)
Custom Duty (6,579)
DGFT (3,419)
Excise Duty (4,040)
Fema / RBI (3,237)
Finance (3,415)
Income Tax (24,908)
SEBI (2,721)
Service Tax (3,278)

Search Posts by Date

August 2017
« Jul