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 Pune deleted Section 270A penalty after holding the addition under Section 43CA was based on the DVOs estimated valuation....
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur deleted the Section 69A addition on SBN deposits during demonetisation after finding the cash arose from recorded mobi...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur deleted the Section 69A addition of ₹17.61 lakh, holding that demonetisation cash deposits recorded in accepted book...
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 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...
Merely saying that `loan had been advanced’ or `ITR had not been filed’, without disclosing the reasons, which led AO to hold such a belief , did not confer valid jurisdiction on the AO to take action u/s 147 and 148.
Building Committee (Society) Barnala Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Chandigarh) It is pertinent to observe that the ld.CIT(E) failed to comprehend the role of Bar Association in judicial dispensation. He construed the existence of the assessee-society in a very narrow manner, as if it is a group of some professionals who are working for their individual […]
Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before AO to prove the identity of the Investor Companies, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and no evidence had been brought on record by AO to disprove the same, hence addition made under section 68 was […]
Dow Agrosciences India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We shall now deal with the observation of the TPO/DRP that the approval provided by the RBI would not constitute a valid CUP data, since the RBI does not take into account the transfer pricing provisions to determine the appropriate rates which can be considered as […]
The essential principles of natural justice are the following: Justice should not only be done but seen to be done. One cannot be a judge in his own cause. No party should be condemned unheard. u Impartial hearing must be extended to the person against whom a charge is framed to state his case. Final […]
Batliboi Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has received total sum of Rs.11,14,00,000/- from single purchaser on sale of land (Rs.5,72,84,600/-), towards building (Rs.64,90,400/-) and sale of additional FSI (Rs.4,76,25,000/-). We find that the total sale consideration of Rs.11.14 Crores has not been doubted by the Revenue. Admittedly, the aforesaid break-up of consideration has been […]
ACIT Vs Singareni Colleries Company Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) On careful reading of the Notes submitted by the assessee company it is clear that the assessee is providing interest at certain percentage and credited to the fund account. Further, he observed that it is also a fact that the insurance premium is paid out of interest […]
Since in the financial statement for the relevant year (F.Y. 11-12), the auditor had made a clear disclosure that no revenue had been recognized on account of services rendered to SBI despite having incurred a cost of Rs. 3.2 crore and moreover, as per the matching ‘principl
Reassessment made by AO in respect of assessee-bank was quashed as no new material was brought on record by AO in the reopening of assessment to establish that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment as assessee had already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment and the reopening of assessment made beyond four years from the AY under consideration.
Shivratan Shrigopal Mundada Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We do not find any relevance of the ‘completion of construction’ insofar as the exemption u/s.54F is concerned. What the section requires is that the assessee purchases a new residential house or “has within a period of three years, after the date constructed, one residential house in India.” […]
