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...
ITO Vs Rajeev Suresh Ghai (ITAT Mumbai) It is always useful to bear in mind the fact that, on the first principles, the trigger for taxation of an income in a source jurisdiction is either the economic activity or the linkage of an income with that jurisdiction, and that in the absence of such a […]
Reference for special audit u/s 142(A) was invalid and the assessment orders so passed in the extended time were held to be barred by limitation.
Green Orchard Farm Houses Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Ld.AR has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an omission on part of the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(2) cannot be […]
Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. In the decisions referred to by us in the earlier paragraph of this order on identical issue the tribunal has taken a view that the aforesaid amendment is applicable only prospectively i.e., from 1.4.2021.
Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The reopening has been challenged by the assessee stating that initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax act is solely on the basis of the unverified, on rectified, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed statement of Mr Malu. It is further the claim of the assessee that […]
Jasmin K. Ajmera Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is settled legal proposition that the confession need corroboration with evidences. Though admission is an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Therefore, retracted admission, in the absence of any incriminating material, […]
In our view, the loss on account of forfeiture of advance paid to Mr. Rakesh Rastogi is incidental to the business of the assessee and is allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) or under section 28 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi (supra).
ACIT Vs PC Jewellers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts- AO disallowed the bank guarantee commission and credit card commission u/s 40(a)(ia) on the grounds that TDS is not deducted. AO rejected the diamond purchase from commission agent and added income @12.5% on the purchase alleging purchase as inflation of purchase price on purchases from accommodation entry […]
ACIT Vs Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. (ITAT Pune) Admittedly, the appellant had filed the primary details such as name, address, invoice, payment made, etc. However, the assessee could not furnish the confirmations from payees and for want of the confirmations, Assessing Officer made disallowance. The ld.CIT(A) following the decision of his order in the assessee’s […]
(i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
