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...
Sunrise Biscuit Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Gauhati) VAT subsidy received by the Assessee – subsidy received for substantial expansion of the undertaking – subsidy is capital in nature – capital subsidy liable to be excluded from the computation of books profit Facts- The assessee has received subsidy of INR 8,78,84,902/- from the Industrial […]
Lite-on Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Facts- TPO in respect of procurement of management services determined NIL arm’s length price by holding that the assessee didn’t bring any evidence on record to suggest that it was in need for services for which it has paid to its AEs. Further, assessee has availed […]
Now it has been provided that the due date in section 43B is of no consequence to judge the applicability of provisions of section 36[1][va]of the Act and that too with effect from 01.04.2021.
CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal un-admitted, for the reason that assessee has filed appeal manually instead of electronically filing is mandatory under the rules. When these facts were confronted to Id. senior Department Representative, she could not controvert the above stated facts. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
We are of the considered view that the appellant has no business connection in India in respect of supply of GSM System by the appellant to cellular operators in India and further, there is no PE in any form in India in the captioned Assessment Years and therefore, the question of attribution of profit does not arise at all.
In our considered opinion, Audit Report and Audited Statement of Accounts are the outcome of books of account maintained by an assessee. If these documents are available, then it can be safely presumed that the assessee must have maintained proper books of account, which would enable the auditors to furnish audit report.
Confederation of Pharma Dealers Association Vs CIT (ITAT Raipur) Section 12A Registration cannot be denied merely for Leasing of Developed Plots to Members and Object beneficial to a section of public is also an object of general public utility It is evident that the objects of the assessee trust meant for benefit of pharma dealers […]
Smt. Bhavana Jain, Prop. M/s Akash Metal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee’s explanation with regard to interest in the loose sheet i.e. blue diary found during the course of search was that it was for the purpose of memory and the addition could not have been made solely on the basis of loose paper […]
Action Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer has not given any reason as to why he dropped the penalty in Assessment Year 2010-11 and sustained the imposition of penalty for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 under the same set of facts. Moreover, in the impugned penalty order, the Assessing Officer has stated […]
Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) From the narration given in the list of donations, it is observed that the amount of donation has been given for the specific purpose. The Assessing Officer has bifurcated three donations as specific purpose and left out other donations not being specific purpose without giving any reason. […]
