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 : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
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 : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. P...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for de...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey num...
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...
Income Tax : Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Ac...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL 1. Australian Taxation Office publishes important guidance on cross-border tax measures 2. Singapore, Turkmenistan sign comprehensive tax treaty 3. Zimbabwe proposes amendments to thin capitalization rules. 4. Bulgarian mandatory transfer pricing documentation rules enacted 5. USA and Curacao negotiating country-by-country reporting exchange agreement. 6. Switzerland to exchange financial account information with 33 more […]
Explore the ITAT Mumbai judgment in Anandkumar Jain vs ITO, highlighting rectification under Section 154 for deduction under Section 80HHC based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
Satish Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and submitted before A.O. that original return filed before him may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. […]
Assessee had only purchased software internally developed by non-resident and non-resident had not passed the copyright and only ‘right to use’ had been given to assessee and as such ‘right to use’ was akin to purchase of copyrighted article and in the absence of purchase of any copyright in the article, the assessee could not be held liable to deduct tax at source out of such payments.
DCIT Vs M/s. DLF Assets Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) On the aspect of disallowance made by the Ld. AO by invoking the provisions u/s 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D (2) (ii) of the Rules, it is the submission of the Ld. AR that the interest expenses net of interest income may be considered […]
The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in light of provisions of section 147 of the Act, and the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29/12/2018 and came to the conclusion that the assessment has been reopened on change of opinion without there being any tangible material, in the possession of the AO, which suggest escapement of income.
M/s Ram Lal Bhasin Public School Vs CIT (ITAT Amritsar) For claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, the entity must be an University or other educational institute existing solely for educational purpose and not of the purposes of profit. In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee is a school […]
ITO Vs Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha (ITAT Mumbai) We find that with regard to claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, this tribunal in quantum proceedings had granted deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of payments made within the prescribed limitation period i.e payments made within one year prior to the […]
ACIT Vs Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah (ITAT Mumbai) The undisputed position that emerges is the fact that the property under consideration was subject matter of extensive litigation which ultimate got culminated into sale of the property by the assessee in terms of consent terms dated 03/01/2012 between the assessee and certain other parties. The assessee, […]
As allotment of property was final and payment of purchase consideration had been duly made before allotment, therefore, holding period of property had to be computed from the date of allotment, and not from the date of taking delivery of possession which was only a follow-up action.
