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...
Dy.CIT, Pune Vs KRA Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd -The view of the assessing officer was consistent with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Castle Investment (supra). The judgement in Castle Investment insofar as is material held that Section 1150(5) does not in any way restrict the allowability of the claim under section 80M. Under Section 80M what is claimed as a deduction is the dividend received by the company. Dividends declared, distributed or paid are not claimed as deduction under Section 80M though they constitute an outflow of funds from the company. Section 80M imposes a monetary restriction on the amount that may be claimed by way of a deduction by providing that the amount of claim cannot exceed the dividend distributed by the assessee by the due date.
Section 43B opens with a non obstante clause which means that it controls the operation of other provisions of the Income-tax Act in that section 43B will have overriding effect notwithstanding other provisions under which a deduction may otherwise be allowable.
The fact that the international transactions are at ALP does not mean that no addition can be made on the funds kept by the assessee with the AE. If the assessee had received funds within the normal period, it could have earned interest on the same. The potential loss is a factor to be considered while evaluating the financial impact of the international transactions between the assessee and the AE. However, a reasonable period has to be provided as interest-free period;
As the funds were mixed, it is not possible to ascertain whether the investment in tax free bonds is out of the assessee’s own funds. The source of investment in the tax free bonds was not identified. The AO did not establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the investments in the tax free bonds. The cash flow of the assessee was not seen. Therefore, the apportionment on a pro rata basis was improper in the absence of anything brought by the AO to rebut the assessee’s stand that the investment in the tax free bonds had been made out of the funds of own funds (Minda Investments, Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) and Winsome Textile Industries 319 ITR 204 (P&H) followed);
1. Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only one comparable instance (Sony India vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) & DCIT vs. BASF India not followed. Perot System TSI (India) Ltd 130 TTJ 685 followed); 2. The said Proviso as amended w.e.f 1.10.09 is a substantive provision and not clarificatory and applies only from AY 2009-10 and onwards. Even otherwise, the exception provided in both the provisos of s. 92C(2) with regard to the +/- 5% variation applies only when more than one price is determined. Even under the amended law, the benefit is not available to the assessee if only one price has been determined by applying CUP method. 3. Circular No. 12/2001 dated 23.8.2001 which states that the AO shall not make any adjustment to the ALP determined by the assessee if such price is upto +/- 5% the price determined by the AO is not applicable because the assessee has not “determined” a price but has relied upon the “Agriwatch” data base. Even the AO has relied on the same data base. So, “the price determined by the assessee and the AO is the same” and the Circular is not applicable. There is also no absurdity in this interpretation; 4. The argument that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions is not acceptable because the assessee has not shown that various purchases were a part of pre-arranged scheme or agreement so as to constitute a part of the indivisible transactions of purchase.
Non-production of vouchers for few expenditure incurred by the charitable trust will neither change the basic characteristic of the trust nor could it be inferred that the trust has deviated from its activities, which are not charitable in nature.
When the amount paid by the assessee to the Singapore company for purchase of computer software cannot be treated as royalty, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from such payment.
Where the assessee-company entered into non-compete agreement with one party and the same was applicable for 5 years, which period has been considered to be sufficient to give enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure claimed by the assessee in pursuance of non-compete agreement is capital expenditure, the deduction of which cannot be granted to the assessee as revenue expenditure
The AO was of the opinion that when interest accrued on loan was credited in the creditor’s account, the assessee was supposed to deduct tax at source within the meaning of provisions contained in Section 194A of the Act. Since assessee failed to deduct tax at source from the amount of interest credited in the creditor’s account, the AO passed the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A).
Rs.1,75,57,916/- declared business profit of Rs.18,09,37,887/- in trading of shares and short term capital gain of Rs. 16,33,22,167/- from sale and purchase of shares. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that in the preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y.2004-05, the assessee had not shown any capital gain from investment in shares. The a
