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 : Article examines whether the MLI Principal Purpose Test has domestic effect under Section 90(1) following Nestlé SA and Sky High ...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : ITAT held that delayed filing of Form 10B cannot defeat Section 11 exemption if the audit report is available before processing un...
Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the appeal after holding that mere upload of an order on the ITBA portal is not valid service under Sectio...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held Section 2(47)(v) inapplicable as the JDA did not satisfy Section 53A conditions, deleting capital gains for AY...
Income Tax : The issue concerns massive backlog in ITAT caused by unfilled positions and delayed appointments. The intervention highlights that...
Income Tax : A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata quashed an assessment after holding that the Section 143(2) notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction wa...
Income Tax : Surat ITAT held BSNL VRS-2019 ex-gratia is eligible for Section 10(10B) exemption, condoned delay and directed AO to verify and gr...
Income Tax : Patna ITAT deleted search-based additions lacking corroborative evidence and restored the Section 56(2)(x) issue for fresh adjudic...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad allowed Section 54F deduction, holding that completion certificate was not required where evidence established cons...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata upheld deletion of business expenditure disallowance, holding that nil sales did not establish business closure and r...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed rectification under Section 254(2), correcting factual errors and granting Section 54EC deduction of ₹1 crore ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has revised its hearing notice protocols. Physical notices will now be sent only once, with subsequent dates availa...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
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...
During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted that it has taken loan for purchase of two residential properties which have been allotted to two Directors for their residential purposes. It was submitted that the perquisite value on account of residence has been accounted for in the income of the Directors and has been offered for taxation.
ITAT held that high turnover is a ground to exclude a company from the list of comparable companies in determining ALP, held that there were contrary views on the issue and hence the view favourable to the Assessee laid down in the case of Pentair Water (supra) should be adopted.
The LO does not constitute a fixed place through which business of assessee is carried out in India. Employees of the LO do not negotiate, finalise or discuss the mechanics of contracts including pricing with the assessee’s customers. As such the employees of LO merely act as a communication link between the assessee and the airline companies. The LO did not carry any activity, beyond that permitted by the RBI. The activities carried by the LO are thus, preparatory (auxiliary) in nature. The activities/operations of the assessee in connection with the contracts are carried from outside India.
Renu Ratnakar Bhattacharya Vs CIT (Appeals) (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the assessee that at the time of purchase of house property the assessee paid brokerage to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- at the rate of 1% of the agreement cost of the new property to one Mr. Rajesh Mahendru. The assessee brought on […]
Bharat Keshavlal Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) Lastly comes the issue of section 56(2)(vii) made applicable in assessee’s case on account of alleged difference between stamp valuation and actual purchase consideration qua the sale deed executed in the relevant previous year. A perusal of the said sale deed dated 31.12.2013, and more particularly, the schedule […]
The AO had made out a case that if the assessee company had paid dividend instead of remuneration to directors, such payment would have been fetched more tax. In our considered opinion, there is no question of changing the character of transaction from payment of salary to the possible payment of dividend, resulting into potential higher inflow of tax.
It is the case of the assessee that the rent payment to the licensor is independent of the CAM charges payable and thus the CAM charges cannot partake the character of rent. The assessee thus contends that the deduction rate applicable on CAM charges @2% under Section 194C has been rightly deducted.
There is no provision under head Profits and Gains from business or profession which deems rental income from unsold flats held as stock as Business income.
Sureshbhai Vihabhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute to the fact that there is a downfall in the gross profit ratio declared by the assessee in the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier years. But the controversy arises whether the downfall in the gross profit ratio gives the authority to […]
By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the payment for breach of contractual obligation pursuant to an arbitration award in the pending litigation, cannot be said to have been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law.
