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 Chennai remanded the Section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition, directing the AO to adopt the stamp duty value as on the agreement date ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on ₹9.12 lakh interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks and partl...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai restricted the Section 69A addition to peak credit in undisclosed bank accounts and directed taxation at 30% instead ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bengaluru quashed reassessment after holding that a Section 148A(b) notice granting less than seven days to respond is legall...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune upheld the Section 54F deduction on purchase of a residential property from the assessee's husband and dismissed the Rev...
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...
Smt. Rontala Tirumala Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT finds that the statement of the M.D Shri Rontala Raji Reddy was recorded on 17.10.2014 i.e. a day after the survey on 16.10.2014 and the diaries impounded during the course of survey allegedly corroborated the statement. It is a settled position that no addition can be made […]
ITO Vs Ayesha Abid Ali (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in the hands of the assessee of interest income from an A/c with HSBC held by the assessee jointly with her husband which was opened by his employer to deposit his salary income. Therefore, it is not an […]
ACIT Vs V.V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) On perusal of the statement, AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of Rs. 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in […]
ACIT Vs. V. V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of ₹ 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in his wife’s name for […]
Sukhdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards the contention of notice not properly served by the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. As regards ground Nos. 8 to 13, the […]
Morgan Stanley Mauritius Co Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The reasoning given by the DRP is ex facie incorrect inasmuch as the SCB-India, being a permanent establishment of a company fiscally domiciled in the United Kingdom, and is not a taxable unit in India, and the taxability is in the name of its general enterprise- […]
The property was conveyed to assessee after the death of his father in 1955, i.e. before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1950. Accordingly, the property belonged to HUF of assessee and not to assessee-individual. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 147 for difference in sale consideration and fair market value of property itself was liable to be quashed.
Merely because assessee had not disclosed mode of payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same should not doubted especially when such salary to security guards came to Rs.27,000/- per month for four persons. Even, if the payment was made in cash, there would be no violation of section 40A(3).
Manoj Singhal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On going through the details, we find that the deduction claimed u/s 54F was Rs.6,12,10,100/- whereas the deduction eligible was Rs.6,11,19,500/-. Thus, there is a computational difference of Rs.90,600/- in the claim of deduction u/s 54F which could have been rectified u/s. 154. The provisions of section 263 need […]
Smt. Bachupally Laxmi (alias Routhu Laxmi) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) For the purpose of computation of LTCG arising out of the development agreement cum GPA, the Assessing Officer has accepted that the assessee has acquired the flats as on 9.11.2009 and therefore, in the year 2012 when the assessee has sold the flat, the holding […]
