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...
DCIT Vs Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The grievance of the Revenue is that CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by considering the supplementary TNMM analysis and other documents filed before her and those documents were not made available to AO and secondly on merits, the order of TPO […]
Devendra Kumar Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) The impugned addition stem from the fact that an amount of Rs.8 Lacs in cash (in old currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 & Rs.1000 as demonetized by government on 08/11/2016) was found from the possession of the assessee on 18/11/2016 at arrival terminal of Maharana Pratap Airport, […]
Smt. Gyatri Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) From the record, we also noticed that the A.O. has not stated either in the assessment order or in the ordersheets of the assessment proceedings that any notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. It is clear that there is no notice U/s 143(2) […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Mayo College General Council (ITAT Jodhpur) The deduction of depreciation for Rs.300.37 Lacs as claimed by the assessee was denied by Ld. AO on the reasoning that cost of fixed asset is an application of income and therefore further deduction of depreciation tantamount to double deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation by […]
Sonali Hemant Bhavsar Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We observe from the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act for limited scrutiny dated 19.09.2016 and find merits in the contentions of the assessee that the said limited scrutiny can not be expanded unless the AO converted it into complete scrutiny with the approval of Ld. […]
R. & H. Property Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Pr. CIT had held the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 10.10.2016 as erroneous, in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, for the reason, that he had failed to carry out proper investigation as regards the […]
ITAT Mumbai verdict on Amarchand & Mangaldas vs ACIT. Disputed tax credit under Indo-Japanese tax treaty. Details of the case and judgment.
DCIT Vs Morarjee Realities Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ‘Capital Asset’ as defined in Sec.2(14) would mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession’, except those which are specifically excluded in the said section. The only exclusion is only for stock in trade, consumables or raw materials […]
ACIT Vs Fortis Hospitals Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Non compete fee did not confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity. The right is restricted only to the particular party or individual and does not have the exclusivity over the rest of the world. Thus, non-compete fee cannot be termed as intangible asset. The […]
Merely because tax at source has been deducted by the builder, the receipt of mobilization money cannot be deemed as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision reached by the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition on this count. Finding no merit in this ground raised by the revenue, the same stands rejected.
