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 Surat held that Section 10AA deduction could not be reduced by imputing partners interest and remuneration where the partners...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat upheld Section 80IB deduction where partners chose not to receive remuneration or interest, holding the Assessing Offic...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that capitation fees collected outside the books were not eligible for Section 11 exemption and upheld reliance on ...
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 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...
Lufthansa German Airlines Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The question is whether the User Development Fee (UDF) collection charges paid by AAI to the Lufthansa German Airlines (Assessee) is income derived from operation of aircraft not liable to tax in India as per Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany. As the effective management of […]
ITAT Held that sales tax subsidy is capital receipt mistakenly offered by the assessee as income is mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, appropriate relief/ refund available to assessee.
Jeyaraman Senthil Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT CHENNAI) On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given several opportunities and the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control being COVID-19 pandemic period. Hence, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be […]
Mohideen Sharif Inayathulla Sharif Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Ground- The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai failed to independently apply his mind that the village in which this land is situated is more than 5 kilometers from the nearest municipal limits. A mere misstatement or confusion with regard to the identical name of 2 villages […]
Sh. Sanjay Jain Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the present set of cases, AO asked the assessees to furnish the relevant details relating to Long Term Capital Gain, Short Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents […]
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Banagalore) Ld. TPO thus applied the TNMM as the MAM and determined ALP which resulted in adjustment of Rs. 10,19,77,372/- to the Manufacturing Segment. The assessee filed objection before the DRP agains the proposed adjustment. However the DRP upheld the order of Ld. TPO by observing that in […]
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The submissions of Ld. AR are that warranty expenditure is part of overall sales obligations and the expenditure is reimbursed on actual basis. The warranty obligation being part and parcel of sales transactions and therefore, the same could not be held to be ‘fees for technical […]
ACIT Vs Parsons Brinckershoff India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) We find the JCIT in the instant case levied penalty of Rs.98,92,242/- u/s 271C on the ground that the assessee has not deducted TDS on certain expenses for which provision of Rs.9,92,66459/- was created in its books of account. We find the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the […]
Shanmugar Services Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) As per the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act, any person responsible for making payment for any services needs to deduct TDS on such payment at the prescribed rate. From the plain reading of Sec.194C of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the person who makes payment is […]
P. Divagar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) n the present case, the only issue for consideration is whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is valid or not. For the sake of convenience, the reasons recorded and communicated to the assessee are reproduced as under: “The assessee filed his return of income […]
