ITAT Judgment contain Income Tax related Judgments from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Across India which includes ITAT Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkutta, Hyderabad etc.
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of agricultural expenses based on estimation is unsustainable without concrete evidence, rul...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied solely due to missing bills or vouchers, emphasizing the principle of...
Income Tax : Learn about how the holding period of property impacts Capital Gain tax, including ITAT's recent decision clarifying calculations ...
Income Tax : Explore key updates on recent income tax case laws, covering international taxation, business income, and capital gains. Essential...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of a significant Delhi ITAT ruling on cash sales pre-demonetization. Learn how it affects taxation and f...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : Supreme Court of India has recently issued an order requiring all revenue appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ...
Income Tax : At present appeals are fixed in routine and may take one to two years period even for first hearing. it is humbly submitted that t...
Income Tax : CBI Registers a Case against Accountant Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the Allegations of Possessing Disproportio...
Income Tax : Law Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad launches 'itat e-dwar', an e-filing portal of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Portal will ena...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai dismisses income tax additions for AY 2014-15, stating reliance on a generalized report without independent inquiry is...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholds CIT(A) decision to delete addition of interest income from fixed deposits in Evita...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune sends case back to CIT(A) after hearing notices sent to registered email went unnoticed, leading to non-appearance by th...
Income Tax : ITAT restores case to CIT(A) as incorrect filing date led to faulty judgment in Emerald Mining Pvt. Ltd. tax dispute....
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT rules that the requirement of filing Form 10B is procedural, allowing Section 11 exemption for an educational trust des...
Income Tax : Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice-President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as President of th...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance notified rules for appointment of members in various tribunals on 12.02.2020 in which practice of judicial and...
Income Tax : Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Ac...
Income Tax : Office Order No. 08 of 2021 Post facto approval of the Competent Authority is hereby conveyed for extension of term of ad-hoc appo...
Income Tax : In continuation of the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) dated 01.06.2020 the hearing of cases at 'ITAT Chandigarh Benches from 0...
At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the issue raised by the revenue in second ground of appeal stands covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 615/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) order dated 4-11-2015
Disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even if the assessee has not earned any tax-free income on the investment. . It was immaterial if dividend income was actually earned or not, which, rather, may be a consideration where the shares, as in the present case, are held to retain control over the investee company, i.e., for strategic reasons, as was the case with regard to the investment by Maxopp Investment Ltd. – one of the assessees in that case.
Where assessee claimed loss on sale of motor car, which was wrongly debited to P&L account, but there were other motor cars also existing in block of assets and the said block of asset of motor car had not ceased to exist, therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32 on the block of assets consisting of motor car remaining after crediting sale proceeds of the motor car sold during the year, thus, matter was to be restored to the file of the AO for re-computation of depreciation.
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 27.9.2017 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(5) in pursuance of directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide order dated 7.9.2017.
For the only reason that the payment of purchase has been made after a lapse of 9 months cannot render the purchase as non genuine unless and otherwise any material is brought on record which could negate this
Reasons recorded by AO to reopen assessment merely on basis of information from DIT(Inv.) without independently applying his own mind could not be said to be reason to believe that income had escaped assessment hence, reopening was bad in law.
One these reasonings, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter— and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee— we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the CIT in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken
Where AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of change of head of income in assessment, it was held that mere making a claim which was not acceptable to revenue, could not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract penalty proceedings.
In the case of Reliance Communications Ltd, Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) laid down certain guidelines for taxation of royalty payments to non-residents and held that payment for acquiring the copy of the software for the copyrighted article cannot be considered as royalty.
TDS provisions were applicable to interest payments made to NBFCs, however, if payees had shown interest income in their respective returns and paid income tax thereon, no disallowance could be made in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia).
