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...
Retiring partners did not acquire any right in the revalued property and what they got on retirement was only money equivalent to enhanced portion of the assets re-valued which did not constitute capital asset under section 2(14) and payment of the said money by assessee-firm to retiring partners could not give rise to capital gain under section 45(4) read with section 2(14).
Since assessee had not transferred any old machinery from the existing unit to new unit and the transactions of purchase of raw material from the existing unit were at arm’s length price, deduction u/s 80IC was allowable as there was no splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence at Noida Unit.
TDS under section 194A was liable to be deducted on amount paid towards interest on loan availed for purchasing a vehicle even when the amount in question was debited from the account of assessee through ECS and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was to be made for non-deduction of tax at source even when nothing remained outstanding at the end of the year as the provisions contained under section 40(a)(ia) did not make any distinction between the amount paid or payable.
In the absence of a valid order u/s 120(4)(b) as well as section 127(1) of the Act the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised powers of an Assessing Officer to pass the impugned assessment order.
Section 194 H was applicable on on the discount allowed by assessee to the prepaid card distributors in respect of supply of SIM card/Recharge vouchers (SIM/RV).
Conclusion: Exemption under Section 54 was available to assessee for properties purchased in foreign countries as there was no condition in the provision that the property must be purchased in India prior to amendment in the provision in 2015.
ITAT held that Stock- in-trade can be considered as transferred only in the year in which the assessee has executed the sale deed transferring the stock-in-trade and not when the assessee has given stock-in-trade for joint development to the builder. As already held in the above cases, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) would apply only to the capital asset and not to stock-in-trade.
Depreciation claimed by assessee under section 32 cannot be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A because section 14A deals only with the expenditure and not any statutory allowance, such as depreciation under section 32.
Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO observed that assessee failed to reconcile interest income to the extent of Rs.67,939/- with its books of accounts and therefore added back the said amount as undisclosed interest income of the appellant as shown in the Form 26AS. […]
There was no merit in the argument that while a partnership deed is to be registered, amendment thereto is not. Amended salary clause being neither stamped nor registered, it was not admissible in evidence in a court of law, i.e., as a legally enforceable contract. Therefore, AO could not be faulted with for not giving cognizance to such a document and disallowance of remuneration paid to partner as made by AO was justified.
