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 Delhi deleted additions under section 41(1) and held that non-response to notices alone could not render supported sundry c...
Income Tax : ITAT held that omission in Form 3CD fell within section 273B reasonable cause, deleted the penalty, and allowed the assessee's app...
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 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...
Tapas Kumar Mallick Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing and the exparte Ad-Interim order of the SEBI. It can be seen that the entire assessment order has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting […]
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Delhi) The disputes pertain to the sole issue of interest under Section 244A of Income Tax Act, 1961 payable by Revenue to the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order Ld. CIT(A) expressed the view that interest should be given to the assessee under Section 244A of I.T. Act […]
No disallowance u/s 14A was called for in case of no exempt income earned by assessee in the relevant assessment years
Aagam Shares & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is also well settled that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be imposed in every case merely because it is lawful to do so. The penalty will not ordinarily to be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, the reason for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act germinates from the contents of letters dated 27/07/2011 and 06/09/2011 written by one of the employee indicating that the assessee has extended loan of GBP 37.50 million as per part of […]
Sahakar Global Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Issue- Addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 in respect of amount received during the year as share capital and premium from M/s. Vanguard Jewels Ltd, Ansh Merchandise Pvt Ltd., Alka Diamond Industries Ltd & Talent Infoway Pvt Ltd. Held: Additions have primarily been made […]
Af-taab Investment Company Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case the assessee had a bonafide belief that the loss suffered by it is business loss. The change of nature of loss from business loss to speculative loss was not enough to impose penalty on the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to delete the penalty […]
Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the case, the issue in dispute is regarding the head under which rental income is to be taxed. The assessee is earning rental income from commercial malls and offered the same under the head ‘Profit and Gains of Business or Profession’. The rental income has been […]
Sales Tax subsidy received for expansion of assessee’s existing industry was capital in nature as the purpose of the same was for the expansion of the existing industry of assessee. Moreover, the amounts which were not taxable in the normal computation could not be included while computing the book profit because such amounts did not really reflect a receipt in the nature of income and could not form part of the book profit.
Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on license fees paid to Israel entity as it had already furnished certificate from a chartered accountant, return of income and computation of income under section 139 and income of assessee was not taxable in India and assessee had already filed the relevant information u/s 201(1) which showed that assessee could not be regarded as ‘assessee in default’.
