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 : Bangalore ITAT restored Section 80P issues for fresh examination and deleted certain disallowances after finding inadequate reason...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of PF/ESI disallowance, holding the issue was debatable when the Section 143(1) intimation was issued....
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad allowed Section 87A rebate on tax under Section 112 for AY 2024-25 where total income was below ₹7 lakh and direc...
Income Tax : ITAT remanded taxation of software and SaaS receipts as FTS for fresh examination and directed 10% DTAA rate if receipts are ultim...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted the Section 54/54F disallowance, accepted the registered valuer’s FMV as on 01.04.2001, and rejected the AO...
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...
JCIT Vs Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the case on hand, the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 3.59 crore from Shri Kanjibhai Desai which was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act by the AO. However, the learned CIT (A) was pleased to delete the addition made […]
We are of the opinion that the assessee has invested the sale consideration on transfer of Capital Asset in purchasing a new residential property in the name of Smt. Shailaja J who is being married widowed dependent daughter of the assessee and also legal heir of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on the amount invested in purchase of residential house in his daughter’s name.
M/s Perfect Constech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Penalty not leviable for non deduction of TDS under section 271C for EDC charges paid to HUDA as it is non statutory contractual liability It is seen that in Para 4.3.2, subparagraph (iv) of the order passed u/s 271C of the Act, the AO has himself […]
ITO Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the AO has not pointed out any accounting defects in the books of accounts. Rather he is summarily ignored the books of accounts but has proceeded to invoke section 145(3) which is bad in law.” 14. The ld. CIT (A) held that there is […]
Batliboi Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Issue regarding non-taxability of Rs.4,27,43,000/- by treating the same as capital receipt for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act though not claimed before the lower authorities by the assessee, is being claimed for the first time before this Tribunal. We find that this is purely a legal […]
Rakesh Ambalal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) We have perused the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) as well as the materials placed on record and referred to in terms of Rule 18(6) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. On perusal, we observe that at the time of original assessment proceedings, […]
Pradeep Kumar Jindal Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case, admittedly, there is no adjudication by the ITAT on merits. In our opinion, the order dated 10th December, 2015 of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner for non-prosecution and not on merits, as the ITAT was required to do notwithstanding the […]
Sushila Birla Memorial Institute Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) There is no dispute of the fact that the assessee Trust exists solely for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit. There is also no dispute of the fact that the annual receipts of the assessee do not exceed the amount prescribed. The only issue […]
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) By means of this stay application, the appellant seeks to get extension of demand amounting to Rs.71,12,41,378/- already stayed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11, till the disposal of appeal. The Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal vide its order […]
We are of the view that the AO has re-opened the assessment on mere change of opinion, because it is the assessing officer who took a different view at the time of reopening of assessment, i.e., he has entertained an opinion that the family members should have transferred the gold to the assessee firm and then the assessee firm should have held the gold on its own account.
