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...
Revised Accounting Standard 7 – Construction Contract is applicable to only contractors and not to builders and real estate consultants. Accordingly, the Project Completion Method consistently followed by the taxpayer for recognising revenue in the books of accounts cannot be regarded as an unreasonable.
Assessee having suspended only its manufacturing activity and not closed down its trading activity, it is not a case of closure of business and, therefore, expenses incurred by it towards severance cost of employees is allowable as revenue expenditur
The Court has made it clear that though there are no hard and fast rules regarding grant of stay, prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for and stay should not be granted as a matter of course. Considerations about balance of convenience, question of irreparable injury and implications to public interest have to be borne in mind
The assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of corporate and project finance and merchant banking. The assessee had taken premises at Bardy House, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 on rent. During the previous year, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,94,066/- in connection with renovation of the aforesaid leasehold premises. The assesse
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee received a gift of Rs.30,00,000/- from Mrs. Chandra Hingorani. The genuineness of the gift was examined by the Assessing Officer by considering the various documents including taking statements of the assessee which was recorded on 19.12.2006.
The assessee maintained regular books of account following recognized method of accounting. The assessee has shown 10.22% of G.P. for the year under consideration as against 6.78% GP of last year. Search and seizure actions were carried out on 14.6.2006.
It has been held by various judicial pronouncements that unless proper method is followed, comparables are chosen and selected after doing a proper FAR study as well as adjustments are made to the extent possible it would be unfair to summarily reject the transfer pricing analysis made by the assessee
The AO further made a disallowance of a deduction of Rs.6,94,02,867/- u/s 40(a). The assessee claimed that certain disallowances were made for expenditure in the earlier years in the case of KEC Infrastructure Ltd. and as the payments of these disallowed expenditure were made during the year, the assessee claims that the same should be allowed in its han
The issues involved in this appeal are that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions in respect of gifts claimed to have been received by the assessee for Rs. 1,00,000/- each from Smt. Sushilaben and Smt. Manjulaben. During the assessment year in question the assessee has shown to have received following gifts.
At the outset, it was submitted by the learned AR that the first common ground raised by the assessees in the present appeals relating to exemption u/s 10(10CC) is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RBF Rig Corpn. LLC (RBFRC) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 109 ITD 141 wherein it was concluded that payment of taxes by the employer, on behalf of the employee, is a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17 of the Income
