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 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 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 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...
The value of leasehold interest in land is to be included in assets while determining the fair market value of the shares held and owned by the shareholders as on 01.04.1981
Rajesh Sajjanraj Bafna Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Income Tax Proceedings based on documents found by DGCEI during search not sustainable if CESTAT treat such document as DUMB documents At this stage, it is also imperative to remind that the proceedings under the service tax and the income tax are distinct and independent to each other. […]
ACIT Vs Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru (ITAT Delhi) It has been contended by the revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in admitting additional evidence by way of certificate from the Divisional Commissioner without giving any opportunity to the AO. He submitted that it would be seen from the revenues record itself, i.e. from […]
nce the assessee has initially deposited TDS and furnished Statement in Form 26QB within time, but committed a technical error while depositing TDS resulting in non-grant of TDS to transferor, compelling it to again deposit TDS along-with interest for late deposit, then, in the interests of justice and considering the fact that no loss is caused to the Revenue, the assessee cannot be saddled with levy of late filing fee u/s 234E
Infosys Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: The applicable rate of TDS on subcontracting charges paid to Infosys China should be considered at 10% as per the India-China DTAA instead of 20% as per section 206AA. Held: Assessee was an Indian company, engaged in the business of development and export of computer software and related […]
Neesa Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Since the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated in the present case on the basis of documents which we have held above neither belonged to the assessee nor were incriminating in nature, they were not sufficient for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act. The […]
IF car is hired not to perform specific services and charges are not paid on the basis of specific uses but the same is hired for availability of car for particular time or period without specification of particular services and charges paid on fixed basis then such hiring should be considered as rental contract under the provision of section 194I of the Act.
It is clear that the income generated out of earlier release of State Government for its project would have to be converted into State’s equity towards the project and the same cannot be counted as income of BMRCL. Thus, there is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom has to be utilized only for the purpose of scheme. Thus, it has to be capitalized and cannot be considered as revenue receipts.
Clause (iii) of section 2(14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land was outside 8 Km. of municipal limits. Accordingly, agricultural land purchased by assessee was not a capital asset and, therefore, section 56(2) (vii)(b) was not applicable to assessee’s case.
Interest under section 234B and 234C is not leviable since it was not possible for the appellant to anticipate the events that were to take place in the next financial year and pay advance tax on the basis of those anticipated events.
