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...
M N Dastur & Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case the reopening beyond 4 years has been done by getting the approval of Addl. Commissioner and not from the Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Pr. Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was invalid. […]
Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) AO noted that assessee has incurred above expenses towards corporate social responsibility as per Companies CSR Rules 2014. He was of the view that under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business is only allowed as a […]
Karur Jayaprakash Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We notice that the CIT(A) in his order has admitted the fact that the assessee’s representative for the first time produced various details on 21.06.2010 (page 4 of CIT(A)’s order). The CIT (A) has infact verified these evidences but had rejected the same merely on the ground that these […]
GE Intelligent Platforms Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs A.C.I.T (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the […]
Arjun Yadav Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that employees’ contribution to ESI and PF had been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions […]
ITAT Kolkata allowed assessee’s deduction for LIC group gratuity scheme. Relying on precedent, control over funds is key for Section 36(1)(v) applicability.
DCIT Vs Vipul Suresh Kumar Modi (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that no addition can be made for Transactions in Penny Stocks in respect of unabated assessments which have become final in absence of any incriminating material found during search. The brief facts of the case relevant to the issue before us are that the Assessee, […]
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that fees paid by the assessee (HAL) to CGTM France for Payment for Flight Testing Services which includes (i) Air intake Survey (ii) Engine bay, FACEC bay and oil cooling systems (iii) Engine Accessories and FADEC vibrations (iv) Measurement of gas concentration of fire extinguishing systems […]
In our opinion, the addition of such types which are made during the course of survey on oath cannot be made unless there is a supporting material. In our opinion, the addition on estimated basis cannot be justified for reasons, the AO has not rejected the books of account.
Arman Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has made a bald statement that the AO’s assessment order attracts Explanation 2(c) u/s. 263 of the Act. However, he failed to spell out in his impugned order how the action of AO while framing the assessment order is not in […]
