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 Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 2...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge th...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the condition of make available was not satisfied for services when provided by assessee did not enabled the ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information f...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune rules in favor of Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe, deleting addition of cash deposits during demonetization, explained as proceeds ...
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...
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
A Special Bench of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that the income tax that an employer pays on behalf of its employee is a non-monetary benefit in kind and, therefore, exempt from tax. The Tribunal’s ruling will benefit multinational companies operating through liaison and sales offices and unregistered Indian companies, some of which are known to bear the tax costs for their employees.
Deferred tax liability is a provision for tax effect of difference between taxable and accounting income – Not a provision for I -T paid or payable – it is also not reserve as same cannot be transferred to P&L a/c, unlike a regular reserve – ITAT
the various managerial, technical and consultancy services provided by the foreign contractor from the foreign country in connection with the construction project without actually taking up any such activities in India, will not be covered within the meaning of the words used in the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii). In other words the payments made for various services provided from abroad by the foreign contractor will be taxable as income in the hands of the recipient under the provisions of the Act and accordingly the payments made by the assessee to the foreign contractor are liable for the deduction of tax at source.
The rigour of sec.43B may be applicable in the case of Sales-tax or Excise Duty but the same cannot be said to be the position in case of Service-tax because of two reasons. Firstly, the Assessee is never allowed deduction on account of service tax which is collected on behalf of the Govt., and paid to the Govt. accordingly. Therefore, a service provider is merely acting as an agent of the Govt., and is not entitled to claim deduction on account of service tax. Hence, on this account alone addition under sec.43B could not be made
The issue before the Tribunal is the gifts amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs in cash and Rs. 62 Lakhs in immovable property received by Mayavati. The donors had even borrowed money and made the gifts to her. The AO was not convinced but the CIT(A) was and Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee Mayavati is also before the Tribunal pleading Standard deduction of Rs. 30,000/-.
If in law income has to be taxed in hands of AOP, it has to be taxed as such, and mere fact that the income is taxed in hands of individual members of AOP, does not bar Assessing Officer from taxing AOP-ITAT . In a recent case of Pradeep Agencies-v.- Income-tax Officer Delhi Tribunal held that even if the income is taxed in hands of individual members of AOP, does not bar Assessing Officer from taxing AOP.
As per sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 40 which has been substituted by Finance Act 1988 w.e.f 1st April 1989 to extend the applicability of the clause also to the payments made to non-resident of royalty, fee for technical services or any other payment chargeable under this Act. Now, the inclusion of the words ‘any another payments’ in the amended provision has widened the scope of the meaning of the word payment and so the payments made by the assessee through M/s Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, Netherlands to the non-residents in respect of mobilization and demobilization charges amounting to Rs. 8,65,57,909/- under consideration is covered within the provision of section 40 (a) (i) of the Act.
Rolls Royce Plc vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) – jurisdiction u/s 147 can be exercised even on the basis of a prima facie opinion (ii) On facts, the wholly owned subsidiary constituted a ‘business connection’ as well as a ‘permanent establishment’ (iii) the total profits of the enterprise have to be apportioned on the basis of various factors affecting accrual of income. First, the economically significant activities and responsibilities (in the context of activities and responsibilities undertaken by the enterprise as a whole) undertaken through the PE have to be identified through a functional and factual analysis.
RBF Rig Corpn. LIC (RBFRC) v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Perquisite, not provided by monetary payment – Assessment year 2004-05 – Whether payment of tax on behalf of employee at option of employer is a non-monetary perquisite fully covered by sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of section 17 and, thus, exempt under section 10(10CC) and is not liable to be included in total income of employee – Held, yes – Whether taxes paid by employer can be added only once in salary of employee and thereafter, tax on such perquisite is not to be added again – Held, yes
