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...
It was held that transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company, instead of an individual or an HUF, without consideration or at a price lower than the fair market value does not attract Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that search was carried out before the amendment, the addition ought to have been made in terms of the prevailing provision. Therefore, the addition made by the AO invoking Section 115BBE provision of which came into force only on 01.04.2017 is not sustainable.
Sanctuary Television Pvt. Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The PCIT holds that in this case administrative expenses were in the nature of pre-operative expenditure which could not be set-off against the assessee’s foregoing interest income. And that the Assessing Officer’s action allowing the assessee’s claim in a very casual and mechanical manner deserves to be […]
Hon’ble Tribunal uphold the observations of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was observed that in order to assess the asset/bank account held by a third party in the hands of the respondent assessee the department has to prove that the assessee has direct beneficial interest in the asset/bank account held by third party.
Parexel International Clinical Research Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case, the assessee coordinated between the individual investigator and Paraxel International GmbH Germany. The contention of the assessee is that assessee has not undertaken any risk and all risk was taken over by Paraxel International GmbH Germany and relied on the Addendum dated […]
ITAT, Bengaluru Bench in the case of Smt. Nethravathi, Bengaluru vs ITO in ITA No.2630/Bang/2017 order dated 25.04.2018 wherein this Tribunal took the view that multiple flats obtained under JDA would be entitled to deduction under section 54F of the Act.
Sanjay Agrawal Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) – Rejection of books, arbitrary income estimation, and legal principles – AY 2012-13.
DCIT Vs K.S. Diesels Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) we are of the considered view that as the assessee as per the terms and conditions of the OTS had during the year under consideration made a payment of interest of Rs.1,91,19,083/- to GIIC out of the interest of Rs.3,23,84,509/- (supra) that was disallowed u/s 43B in the […]
When the funds available to the assessee both interest free and interest bearing loans, there shall be a presumption that the investments made would be out of the interest free funds available with the assessee, provided the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments which means that when the interest free funds are available to the assessee which were sufficient to meet its investments should be presumed that investments were made out of such interest free funds.
ACIT Vs National Projects constructions Corporation Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Executed border outpost work for the Ministry of Home Affairs and has incurred the expenditure on land acquisition, compensation, service connection charges and miscellaneous expenditure are revenue in nature As per work order (MOU) the assessee was required to acquire the land for the project and […]
