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...
Since AO passed the assessment order and accepted the return filed by assessee after examining the issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and the capital gain from sale of flats and had reflected that same in its capital account, therefore, CIT had exceeded jurisdiction under section 263 by directing AO to make fresh assessment on the issues which were not the subject matter of the AO’s limited scrutiny.
ACIT Vs Hirapanna Jewellers (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case the assessee has established the sales with the bills and representing outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and there were no abnormal profits. In spite of conducting the survey the AO did not find any defects in […]
Talera Automobiles Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 21-07-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-5, Pune in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of foreign travel expenses amounting to Rs.9,29,041/-. 3. Briefly […]
GOCL Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Learned counsel’s first and foremost argument is that a corporate guarantee is a shareholder’s activity which has been wrongly treated as an international transaction u/s.92B read with Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-2002. He next sought to draw a distinction between the […]
Nutan Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) The concept of `accrual of income’ needs to be considered in the hue of the ‘real income theory’. Where accrual of an income takes place but its realisation becomes impossible, such hypothetical income cannot be charged to tax. In the case of mercantile system of accounting, […]
Omkam developers Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) 1. The reasons recorded are based on suspicion, which is evident from the words used in reasons recorded, i.e., “it appears that assessee M/s Omkam Developers Ltd. has received bogus share capital/share premium to the tune of ₹ 1.93 Crores. 2. The Assessing Officer has just accepted the […]
DCIT Vs Saroj Kumar Poddar (ITAT Kolkata) Kolkata bench first of its kind of Interim order on the subject of endless adjournments by revenue on pretext of covid 19 and resultant pains to tax payer languishing for justice held remarkably as follows:- The Revenue is also raising strong objections, without any valid ground, for the […]
ITO Vs Nabinagar Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) No addition on account of interest income as same was inextricably linked with setting up of power plant and to be capitalized Conclusion: Since the work of construction of the power plant was under progress, interest incomes are also inextricably linked with the setting up […]
Sri Pradip Kumar Basu Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the long-term capital gain of Rs.6,14,674/- had arisen to the assessee as a result of residential property sold on 12.06.2013 and in order to claim exemption on account of long-term capital gain under section 54EC of the Act, the assessee was required to […]
Since there was no allegation by the departmental authorities that assessee had violated any of the conditions of the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13, except, the allegation that assessee was a mutual concern and even applying the rule of consistency, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 had to be allowed.
