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...
ACIT Vs North American Coal Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) A careful perusal of the ITSC direction explicitly indicates that the AO shall compute the tax payable ‘after giving credit for taxes already paid by the applicant’. `Taxes already paid’ do not mean only the taxes directly paid by the assessee but also those […]
Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as required by the statute. Notice issue by the officer having no jurisdiction of the […]
DCIT Vs Agile Electric Sub Assembly Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, the assessee has filed a tabular chart explaining date of purchase of machinery and completion of commissioning of such machinery, as per which all the plant and machinery was commissioned before 30.03.2013. The assessee had also placed on record commissioning report for installation and […]
Unifi Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, membership fee paid to any stock exchange including MCX Exchange Ltd., is for acquiring a right in membership of exchanges for trading in shares and securities. Further membership rights in any stock exchange including MCX Exchange Ltd., is a transferable right. Therefore, said right […]
DCIT Vs Pool Thevar Marimuthu (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer alleged that assessee has used old plant and machinery previously used in the unit of M/s. Arun Plasto Moulders Private Ltd at Rs.31 ,20,023/- out of total plant and machinery installed at new unit of Rs.59,81,123/- and the said used plant and machinery is more […]
Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case issue is whether the ld. Pr. CIT is correct in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has called for and verified all the details and documents in connection to the purchase and sale of […]
CIT could not brand the action of AO to accept the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG as a case of no enquiry on the part of AO to term it as an erroneous order and which finding could have facilitated him to usurp/interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. Further, CIT himself ought to have conducted enquiry to bring out the fallacy as to show how the enquiry conducted by the AO was erroneous. Thus, revision was not justified as the impugned order was nothing but cut & paste exercise without application of mind.
Additions made on the basis of statement of assessee u/s 132(4) in the hands of assessee ignoring the fact that the seized material belongs to company was not justified as the same were not attributable to the Managing Director for undisclosed and unaccounted income of the Company.
It is undisputed fact that the consideration is paid to individuals who had experience in the business of consultancy for not to engage themselves in similar kind of business and activities for a period of 3 years. It is also not disputed that such consideration is independent and not part of the cost of acquisition of business paid to shareholders.
Addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence was not sustainable as the department had failed to corroborate the impugned seized document indicating assessee’s alleged on money payment over and above the sale price itself.
