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...
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.
DCIT Vs Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts-Assessment u/s 153C was challenged on the grounds that assessment order dated 31.3.2016 u/s 153C/143(3) was passed without dropping the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 8.9.2015 under section 153A of the Act and disposing off the objection filed by the assessee to initiation of assessment proceedings. Further, […]
Smt. Poonam Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) We find that the AO had invoked his powers u/s.154 of the Act for disallowing u/s.40A(3) of the Act the assessee’s claim for deduction of bonus of Rs.2,47,380/- that was stated to have been paid in cash, i.e., in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs.20,000/-. In our […]
Sansthan Shree Eknath Maharaj Vishwastha Mandal Vs ITO (Exemption) (ITAT Pune) There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee filed its return of income on 17.01.2017 for the year under consideration. The approval was granted by the ld. CIT(E) u/s 12AA on 16.05.2017. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of […]
ACIT Vs P & R Infraprojects Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) shows that no notice u/s 143(2) was ever issued to the assessee before completing the assessment u/s 143(3)/147. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that it is mandatory to issue […]
DCIT Vs J. P. Iscon Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee had given inter-corporate deposit to six subsidiaries companies namely Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Dhwani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rich Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Palitana Sugars Mills […]
SBW Udyog Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Allahabad) Deduction allowed for belated payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI, which is deposited beyond the due date stipulated under the relevant statutes governing PF/ESI, but the same stood deposited before the due date for filing of return of income. Facts- The assessee filed its return of income u/s. […]
Once bogus purchases had gone into profit and loss account, and sales were not doubted, only option left with AO was to make addition of gross profit embedded in bogus purchases. Accordingly, AO was directed to restrict addition to the extent of 9.25% of impugned purchases as assessee had shown gross profit ratio of 9.25% in the year ending March, 2012.
