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...
ITAT Delhi ruling on Amarjeet Kaur vs ACIT case. Disputed capital gains on property sale. Appeal outcome explained.
ITO Vs Suresh Babu Vasireddy (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee is basically engaged in the business as a real estate agent in Hyderabad deriving commission income. The modus operandi of the business activity is that of identifying properties for sale in Hyderabad and simultaneously identify the interested buyers and sell the properties with a marginal profit. […]
Yagnesh Dayabhai Vyas Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. A.R. cited a judgment of ITAT Delhi Bench in the matter of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO where A.O. made addition to assessee’s income under section 69C in respect of amount payable to creditors towards purchases, in view of fact that said purchases were duly recorded in […]
Jagdish Arora Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) Long Term Capital Gain on compulsory acquisition – Taxability Event – and applicability of RFCTLARR Act 2013 – Whether the compensation received on account of Compulsory Acquisition by Government is exempt under provision of Section 96 of RFCTLRR Act 2013 – if the land acquired prior to applicability of […]
A.T. Kearney Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as “ITAT”), Delhi Bench vide it’s Order dated 20.05.2021 have observed that the assessment completed under Section 144C(13)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as “Act”) is barred by limitation as Section 144C of the […]
Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since, ex-parte order has been passed by the learned CIT(A), this is a fit case for remanding the appeal before the learned CIT(A) to give more effective opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the appeal […]
The Hon’ble Tribunal provided relief to the assesse for AY 2014-15 by making its reliance on section 90(2) of Act and observed that the provisions of the Act or the DTAA, whichever are more beneficial to the assessee would apply making the receipt from sale of software license as not chargeable to tax in India.
All the interest bearing funds had been utilized towards interest bearing advances and this was evident from the balance sheet whereby interest bearing loan was Rs. 3,03,50,275 against which, interest bearing advances were Rs. 3,41,00,000 i.e. more than the amount borrowed. No disallowance could be made under section 36(1)(iii) as the amount borrowed on interest had been used specifically and exclusively for advancing amounts of interest for the purposes of earning income.
Since AS-11 was mandatory and required to be followed in computing the income, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on forex loss pertained to non-depreciable asset acquired in India as loss from income.
Biocon Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present facts of the case, the provision created at the end of the accounting year has not been credited to the relevant parties to whom the payments has to be made for the reason that it was unquantifiable. Further, assessee has suo moto disallowed the said sum […]
