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 Special Bench held that omission of scrutiny category in a Section 143(2) notice is a procedural defect curable under Section...
Income Tax : ITAT held section 35D(2)(c) applies only to companies and upheld disallowance of REIT's claim for IPO and listing expense amortisa...
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 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 Delhi deleted the section 69A addition of ₹33.50 lakh after holding the intercepted cash formed part of the disclosed prope...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted Section 270A penalty as notices lacked specific Section 270A(9) charge and the expenditure claim involved a deb...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored six Section 153A search assessment appeals to the AO, subject to ₹50,000 cost per appeal for repeated no...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted a Section 270A penalty as the notice and penalty order failed to specify the exact statutory limb of under-...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held disputed salary is taxable only if it became due and remanded the matter to verify the employment terms and em...
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...
ITAT Delhi decision in ACIT vs. Foot Mart Retail clarifies that liabilities, outstanding for years, not written off, cannot be added under section 41(1). Detailed analysis of the case.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment in Bombay Real Estate Development Co. case, emphasizing absence of new material. Key analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT find that the assessee has not been able to bring out genuine reasons, firstly, for such a huge delay of 1103 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and also why the assessee irrespective of being given eight opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) did not present himself or through his authorised representative before the first appellate authority.
Held that we are of the considered view that the predominant intention of entering into these agreements is letting out of the property and not provision of any independent services.
ITAT held that it is not a sham and bogus transaction. One of the grounds considered for recording that finding is that when the other party is a statutory body the question of evasion of tax does not arise
Assessee contended That National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in rejecting appeal filed by the assessee summarily by stating that appellant has not filed appeal against intimation order u/s 143(1) and tried to take back door entry by filing appeal against order u/s 154 for which the original cause of action has arisen at the stage of 143(1) itself without appreciating the fact that on first stage appellant has taken the remedy of filing application u/s 154 which is legal and as per the provision of Income Tax Act.
The assessee has received incentive in the form of Octroi refund under Govt. of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. in an identical set of facts has held subsidy received by the assessee under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 as capital in nature.
The amount was never debited to the profit and loss account as an expenditure in the year they were received also the amount has not been written off. Said amount not taxable u/s 41(1)
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) would not fall within the ambit of a prima facie error or arithmetical error warranting adjustment in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act unsustainable.
Enhancing the quantity of gold by the weight of stones and diamonds is not logical. It was neither valued nor any Expert Valuers report was available on record. Addition unsustainable.
