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...
Methods (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case there is no dispute that the assessee made payment of the Employees share of PF/ESI on or before the due date for filing return of income for AY 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment […]
ITO Vs Arcil Asset Reconstruction Fund II Trust (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that appellant was revocable Trust, the provisions of Section 61 to 63 of Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable and the assessee could not be assessed as AOP. The income was to be taxed in the hands of the SR holders. Since the […]
DCIT Vs Shalaka Infra Tech (India) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Pune) Whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,68,87,175/- as against Rs.1,88,63,786/- made by the AO on account of labour expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that […]
Income from contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) in respect of such income.
Sri. Yeruva Prasad Vs ACIT/DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration i.e. 2018-19 & 2019-20. By following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), […]
Dow Jones & Company Inc. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the case in hand, the revenue derived by the assessee from granting limited access to its data base is akin to sale of book, wherein purchaser does not acquire any right to exploit the underlying copyright. In the case of a book, the publisher of […]
Entries relating to advances received from Hardev Singh and his son Maninder Singh Sahi from Canada were recorded in books of account and assessee also explained that amount was received as an advance for making investment in property by said person, and assessee was engaged in the property business. Assessee also requested AO to summon concerned party under section 131 but AO did not accede to the request of assessee and made the addition, therefore, addition made by AO was not justified.
Abhay Kumar Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) it was submitted that Income Tax Act does not prohibit claiming HRA exemption on the rent paid to one’s spouse, that her wife is qualified medical practitioner and she has returned the loan extended to her by the assessee from liquidation of mutual funds and fixed deposits. We […]
INCOME TAX DUE DATES-MARCH 2022 [Source: www.incometaxindia.gov.in] Date Nature of Compliance 02nd March Due date for furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under section 194-IA/194IB/194M in the month of January, 2022 07th March Deposit of tax deducted/collected for the month of February, 2022. 15th March Fourth installment of advance tax for the assessment […]
ITO Vs N.G. Group (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT observed that that AO has invoked the provision of section 41(1) without bringing on record any cogent material. For how long the account is outstanding and on what basis of his enquiry, AO has come to the conclusion that these accounts are not payable. Devoid of these details, […]
