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...
Sudeep Chandra Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Cost of acquisition is the price paid by the assessee for the purchase of the house and also the expenditure towards the repairs made by him to make the house habitable and no other expenditure is to be allowed u/s 54 of the Act. As regards the details of […]
Renu Proptech Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Considering the plethora of documentary evidences, we find that not only the assessee has established the source of the creditor, but it has also furnished documentary evidences to show the’ source of source’. We find that the AO, while making addition, has made general observations relating to […]
DCIT Vs M/s Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The relevant part of the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue pertaining to payments made to Mr . Arvind Nanda, with regard to the vehicle purchase, payment made to M/s Intertec on account of job work and the rental payments has been […]
In search assessment, any undisclosed income, which can ultimately be added, is only to the extent of any unrecorded assets/material found or any incriminating documents found as representing undisclosed income earned, since, AO had not made any specific reference to the incriminating material found during the search in respect of additions made by him, therefore, assessment so framed, was bad in law.
Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that in the instant case, the AO had made disallowance on depreciation on 3G Spectrum Fees to the tune of Rs. 408.01 crores. And if the said disallowance is ignored, the net result of remaining additions would only result in assessed loss and hence no tax […]
New Delhi Tyre House Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case a Ground is on account of confirmation of disallowances out of telephone tours, and other expenses including depreciation on the car stating that involvement of the personal element of the partners of the firm cannot be ruled out. Both the lower authorities have confirmed […]
Symantec Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer raised a query that the consideration amounting to Rs.242,52,89,282/- on sale of licence software should be treated as receipts received on account of sale of licence software as royalty. The issue of software income is not a royalty income is settled by the […]
Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the above reply of the Assessing Officer shows that notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2015 was served on the assessee through affixture in presence of Inspector of the Ward. From the details filed by the assessee in the paper book, it is seen that the […]
Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the assessee’s land was acquired by the Government and he received total compensation of Rs. 2,56,29,932/- from land acquisition officer Panchkula which include interest on enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,08,62,416/- and assessee claimed this interest received on enhanced compensation exempt under Section 10(37) […]
The main issue in this appeal is whether loss from sale of long term capital share on which security transaction tax has been paid should be allowed to be carried forward for set off even though the income from such transfer of long term capital asset is exempt u/ s 10 (38).
