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 : n Legal Initiative For Forest And Environment (LIFE Trust) Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi), the stay application was denied as the test for i...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of inc...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that construction of new dwelling unit on first floor is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Income ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai grants relief to Tarun Mohan Jani, ruling that property valuation difference within 10% tolerance limit doesn't warran...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO must record a proper satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim before inv...
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...
Settlement Commission has jurisdiction over assessee only when it decides to proceed with the application and admits application under section 245D(1). In respect of demand raised in the assessment made before the admission of application for settlement under section 245D(1), the Assessing Officer is entitled to levy the interest under section 220(2) till the date of admission under section 245D(1).
We have-considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. So far as facts are concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessees inherited in the co-ownership a Bunglow No.2, Faizabad Road, Opposite to IT College, Lucknow. This was sold by these assessees vide sale deed dated 20.11.2003. Apparent consideration is declared at Rs. 1,20,00,000/ – whereas valuation as per SVA is Rs.2,48,19,410/ -. The assessees objected to the proposal of the
The transportation of passengers, mails or cargo etc. by the assessee in the international traffic by the aircraft as owner/ charterer/ lessee would fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Indo-US Tax Treaty and therefore, profits attributed to the same cannot be taxed in India; further, the profits from inland transportation directly connected with such transportation would also not be taxable in India.
Cuttack bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of R.R. Caryying Corpn. v. ACIT [2009] 126 TTJ 240 (Cuttack) held that only the embedded portion of the profits is to be considered as taxable and not the entire amount in the case of discrepancies between the sales or receipt amount as per books of accounts and the amount shown in TDS certificate, for taxability purpose.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (ITA no. 6133/Mum/2002, ITA No. 7589/Mum/2003) held that the withdrawal of circular no. Circular no. 23 dated 23 July 1969 and Circular no. 786 dated 7 February 2000 by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is effective from 22 October 2009 as made applicable vide Circular no. 7 dated 22 October 2009.
Assessee having failed to prove the identity of the non-resident donors who are said to have gifted substantial amounts to him from their NRE accounts by producing them personally or copies of their passports and also failed to prove the creditworthiness of the said donors, the alleged gifts cannot be treated as genuine, more so since the assessee had no direct relationship with the donors, there was no occasion for making the gifts, and there was no contact between the parties for almost ten years before the time of said gifts.
This has been made clear in the proviso to s. 220(2) as per which where as a result of order under ss. 154, 155 and 245D etc. amount on which interest is payable is reduced the interest would be reduced accordingly. Therefore the interest under s. 220(2) will be legally leviable from the date of default in payment of demand by the assessee till the date of admission of the application by the assessee by Settlement Commission under s. 245D(1).
Where a hospital engaged consulting doctors and provided them with consulting chambers with secretaries assistance and the fees collected from out-patients and paid to the consultants each day after deducting certain amount towards rent and secretarial assistance, it was not a case of payment of professional fee and neither s. 192 nor s. 194J was attracted and the hospital cannot be treated as assessee in default for not deducting tax from such payments.
Thus, the view taken by AO cannot be said to be erroneous which will render the assessment order as erroneous. Neither the AO has drawn incorrect assumption of facts nor AO has rendered incorrect application of law when he accepted the claim of the assessee that advertisement and publicity expenses were allowable as business expenditure
Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Income Tax – Section 80IB(2)(iv) – Determination of whether a business activity of “assembling” amounts to manufacturing for relief u/s 80IB – whether employment of temporary workers is enough to claim the relief – YES
