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...
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“The Tribunal”), Delhi Bench recently pronounced its ruling in the case of M/s Aricent Technologies (Holding) Limited v. DCIT (Appeal no. ITA No. 4699 /Del. /2010) for AY 2006-07, on the amount paid as incentive to employees of the Taxpayer by its parent company pursuant to transaction of takeover for the employees’ retention. The Tribunal held in favor of the Taxpayer observing that transaction does not have any element of income for the purpose of making an adjustment to the price of the said international transaction and is merely in the nature of reimbursement of incentive paid by Taxpayer to its employees.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA NO. 3839/DEL/2010, where the Taxpayer had determined the arm’s length price of their international transactions on the basis of internal benchmarking analysis. The Tribunal upheld the transfer pricing method followed by the Taxpayer whereby the net cost plus margin earned from rendering software development and related services (“software services”) to associated enterprises (AEs) were compared with the operating profit margin earned from rendering software services to unrelated parties.
Mumbai ITAT has held in an important case namely Kumarpal Amrutlal Doshi vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) that relief u/s 54EC shall be available even if the bonds are issued after the requisite period of 6 months for investment, if the cheque is issued within the period of 6 months but cheque is encashed after the requisite period and bonds are also issued after the requisite period of 6 months.
“ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to accept the claim of Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain on profit arriving from purchase & sale of shares instead of business income treated by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that the assessee is dealing in large volume of shares, most of the shares are bought and sold within short period, while some are not sold due to market conditions and their holding with assessee remains beyond few days, it will not change the nature of transactions and the assessee is very well engaged in the business of share trading, which denote that the motive of the assessee is to carry on business in shares to book profit rather than investment in shares.”
Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Special Bench). If the application filed by the assessee is viewed in the light of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, then it will become clear that the relief which is being sought by the assessee by way of impugned rectification application is not legally tenable for the reason that the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon subsequent application filed u/s 254(2). Here, it may be the case of the assessee that earlier order against which impugned rectification application is filed is also an order passed on subsequent application, then the only course permissible to the assessee is to file an appeal against that order and not to approach the Tribunal to contend that the said order was an invalid order, therefore it should be recalled.
Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of DCIT v. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 1184 & 2460/Del/2008) (Judgment Date: 23 December 2010, Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) held that where a parent company merged with its subsidiary, the benefit of brought forward and set off of losses under Section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) claimed by the amalgamated company, cannot be disallowed on the grounds that there was a change in the shareholding of more than 51 percent of the share capital of the subsidiary company since there was no change in control and management of amalgamated company pre and post merger.
National Engineering Industries Ltd. (the taxpayer) had entered into a License & Technical Assistance agreement with Brenco Inc., USA on 19th August, 2002 which expired on 25th June, 2007. Under the agreement the taxpayer was required to pay a certain amount as royalty to Brenco Inc.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Airtech Private Limited (Appeal no. ITA 3591 Del )/2010) on documentation aspect of transfer pricing (TP). The Tribunal held that contemporaneous TP Documentation was to be maintained by the taxpayer annually as the transaction was separate and was influenced by changing market dynamics.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal [the Tribunal] has in the case of M/S Convergys Information Management (India) (F) Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA no. 299/Hl/2009] , held that in a cost plus arrangement expenses incurred post the date of entering into agreement has to be marked up, as no customer would pay mark up before entering into agreement.
Though currently dividend income is exempt, the above decision lays down a principle that brought forward business loss can be set off against other sources of income which are in the nature of business income, though chargeable to tax under another head of income. Similar position has also been affirmed by the Mumbai Tribunal2 wherein it was held that brought forward business losses can be set off against the capital gains arising from a business or profession, though chargeable to tax under any other head of income.
