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...
Kaushal Devendra Doshi Vs I.T.O (ITAT Ahmedabad) As it can be seen after going through the impugned order that Ld. A.O. made reassessment on the basis of audit objection. We are of the considered opinion that Ld. A.O. should have formed independent opinion and copy of the said opinion should have been given to the […]
Space Chem Engineers Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the reasons recorded shows that the name of the companies from whom the assessee company is alleged to have accepted share capital / share application money are different from the companies mentioned in the assessment order from whom the assessee company has actually taken the […]
NTPC Electric Supply Company Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The facts in brief are that the assessee-company is a wholly owned subsidiary company of NTPC Ltd., a government undertaking with the objective to make foray in supply and distribution of electricity. It was entrusted with rural electrification work under the scheme of Central Government. The […]
ITAT Bangalore rules non-resident software payment not royalty. Section 195 not applicable. Full text and analysis of Altisource vs. ACIT case.
Kedar Nath Sawhney Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee in terms of its contract is bound to deliver the goods within the stipulated time. In the course of such transportation, the assessee is bound to incur expenses for putting fuel in the vehicle, payment of toll gate charges, incurring of expenses for routine and exceptional […]
Addition on account of unexplained share capital/premium was not justified as AO merely doubted the financial capacity of the Investors because they had reported low income in their return of income. This could not be the sole basis to doubt the explanation of assessee. It might be suspicion of the AO only without bringing any evidence on record.
Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find, the AO, in the instant case, disallowed depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the assessee has not become the sole logistic service provider to IBM India, the value of workforce does not facilitate the smooth carrying on of the business of the assessee and […]
AO had recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment. It made clear that there was a total non-application of mind on the part of AO while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The reasons failed to demonstrate the live link between the alleged tangible material and the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thus, reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law.
Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee gets a right to the impugned property on the date of allotment letter, i.e., on 22.02.2006 and payment of instalment as per the terms is only a follow up action and taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Therefore, reckoning the period from 22.02.2006, i.e. the […]
Section 273B states that wherever there is a reasonable cause in not complying with the requirements resulting into imposition of penalty including section 271(1)(b) under consideration, the penalty needs to be deleted.
