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...
Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find that additional evidences are produced for the first time before the Tribunal. These documents were not filed before the lower authorities during assessment proceedings due to family disputes. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file […]
Section 10(38) exempts only a stream of capital gain from tax and not the entire source. So if the assessee incurs loss in sale of equity shares, the gain from sale of which is exempt under section 10(38), then such loss will be allowed to be set off against long-term capital gain from sale of shares as well from sale of other assets.
Vishnu Kumar Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find the A.O. in the instant case made an addition of Rs.12 lakhs to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the basis of entries dated 07.07.2010 and 07.08.2010 found as per Page-14 of Annexure-A1. We find the Ld. […]
ITO Vs Sandeep S. Dagaria (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT notices that Assessing Officer has merely proceeded to make addition of Rs.7,00,000/- unsecured loans merely because the Rajat Group of Companies involved in the transaction of bogus purchases and rejected the evidences submitted before him i.e. assessee has submitted the confirmation balance and the transactions were only […]
Dr. Mumtaz Ali Khan Afzal Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Hyderabad) From the facts of the case it appears that the assessee did not properly co-operate before the Ld. AO. However, considering the explanation rendered by the Ld. AR regarding the hardship faced by the assessee and since the assessee is a senior citizen, we […]
Explore the ITAT Indore’s order on unexplained investment and undisclosed expenditure. Assess the impact of legal nuances on tax implications.
Murlidhar Hassani Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, the ld D/R has referred to the explanation […]
To the extent of the interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
Vanderlande Industries Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) A cursory glance at the definition of the term `Royalties’ makes it patent that the hitherto content of para 4 of Article 12 comprising of copyright royalty cases only became subject matter of sub-para (a) of the amended para 4 of Article 12. In addition, para 4(b) […]
Kontoor Brands Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The issue on merit is regarding allowability of depreciation on intangible assets. On this aspect, the issue is covered by the Tribunal order rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. V.F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Para nos. 12 of this Tribunal order are relevant in this […]
