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...
ACIT Vs Vinay Girish Bajpai (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee claimed that he has complied with all the requirements of claiming exemption/deduction under section 54 of the IT Act. He submitted that assessee has made the payment to the builder within the stipulated time. There was some issue of obtaining the completion certificate by the builder. Hence, […]
During the year under consideration also the assessee could not substantiate with relevant evidences that these expenses were related to loan syndication fees and the same was claimed as Investment Advisory Services without any break up of the detail of loan advances arranged by these two parties.
Centum Electronics Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding the identical issue in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd held that assessment order passed on a nonexistent entity is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. Fact of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the notice […]
Sameer Granites Pvt.Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, the assessee had submitted that the orders passed u/s 200A of the Act were never served on the assessee physically or otherwise. It was stated that intimation u/s 200A downloaded from the office of the Assessing Officer by the Tax Professional, was not communicated […]
In this case, assessee is engaged in manufacturing of automobile components and let out 50% of its factory building on lease and earned rental income. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the rental income as income under the head house property. Having the rental income held as income under the head house property, the assessee is not eligible for claim of depreciation on the let out portion.
Krishna Prasad Mikkilineni Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case also we have noticed that the assessee has given only permissive possession and not legal possession. Accordingly, following the above said decision of the coordinate bench, we hold that the transfer has not taken place during the year under consideration. Accordingly, capital gain is […]
Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, both the additions, i.e., addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and sec.68 of the Act relate to the share premium amount, i.e., both the additions arise out of common issue only. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences. We earlier […]
Gogad Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jodhpur) dmittedly and undisputedly, the assessee chose to be un-represented before the NFAC on as many as three occasions. However, the fact does remain that the NFAC did not adjudicate on the merits of the case but dismissed the assessee’s appeal before it on the ground that there […]
Massive Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In this case Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without hearing the assessee and not on merits there is a violation of Natural Justice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the […]
Assessee having disclosed all particulars of his income from sale of agricultural land, having furnished a bonafide explanation for not returning the same to tax and having surrendered the said income suomoto before detection by the Revenue, assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c.
