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...
Revenue ought to have brought evidence on record by bringing comparative quotations to prove the fact that the lease rent paid in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the trustees was excessive or unreasonable and beyond the fair market value thereon. Since ssessee placed on record that the market value of the land was Rs.13,03,76,400/- as per the registered lease deed and the payment of lease rent of Rs.24 lakhs works out to hardly 1.86% thereon. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the rent paid by assessee-trust to the trustees was not excessive or unreasonable.
everting to the CUP method applied by assessee as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the SDT of rent payment, assessee had given a comparable instance of rent paid @ Rs.112 per sq.ft. by ICICI bank under a lease agreement dated 17.02.2012 for a nearby premises. As against that, the assessee paid rent @ Rs.75.28 per sq.ft., which showed that the rent paid by assessee was less in comparison with the comparable uncontrolled transaction. Thus, the ALP of the Specified Domestic Tranasction of payment of rent could not be disputed.
ACIT Vs Remi Electrotechnik Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimate basis without any evidence on record with regard to concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished […]
DCIT Vs Toshvin Analytical Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) As per facts recorded above, the penalty in this case is only with reference to addition on bogus purchases amounting to Rs.3,83,388/-. The addition was sustained by the ITAT @8% of the bogus purchases. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. […]
Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai): Conclusion: Addition as regards the on-money received by assessee was to be made to the extent of the income element embedded in such receipts and the entire amount of on-money could not have been added in the hands of the assessee. No reason or logic had been […]
Dheeraj Thakran Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since the gifts in the instant case were received from parents, brother and spouse, respectively and the father had withdrawn substantial cash amount from the bank before giving the gift on various dates to his son and the gifts from brother, from mother and from spouse were not […]
ACIT Vs CMG Steels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) Facts already disclosed in return of income cannot constitute incriminating material found during search. Also held cross examination importance when requested without which addition becomes invalid In the present case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that the AO has made additions towards unsecured […]
Kimiyoshi Muto Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has shown perquisite under rent-free accommodation by considering only the Indian salary whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, he was required to compute perquisite value of rent-free accommodation by including […]
Onus was on Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search ‘belongs’ to the Assessee, in other words, it was not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either ‘pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that ‘relates to the Assessee.
Interest was payable under Section 234C on default in payment of advance tax installment on returned income, and not on assessed income.
