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...
Assessee provided details of deposits and source from where the deposits have been made in the bank account. Only the relevant parties were not presented to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the same cannot lead to concealment.
Assessee LLP had failed to satisfy clause (e) of the proviso of Sec. 47(xiiib), therefore, the ‘transfer‘of the capital assets on the conversion of the private limited company into a LLP was to be regarded as a ‘transfer‘within the meaning of Sec. 45 and also, there was no occasion for invoking the provisions of Sec. 47A(4).
Limit of exemption of Rs. 50 lakh under section 194-IA(2) was applicable to each transferee separately as each transferee was a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed.
Addition made by AO on the reason that assessee had introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain was not correct as AO had not brought any material on record to show that assessee had paid over and above purchase consideration of shares as claimed and evident from the bank account and assessee had produced the relevant record to show the allotment of shares by the company on payment of consideration by cheque.
Difference between alleged fair market value of share and the subscribed value of shares cannot be assessed as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) as the transaction of issue of shares was carried out to comply with a covenant in the loan agreement with the bank to fund the acquisition of the business by the subsidiary in USA, therefore, such a bonafide business transaction could not be taxed under section 56(2)(vii) especially when there was not even a whisper about money laundering by the AO in the assessment order.
Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether under block of assets, the depreciation allowed even for those assets which have not been used during the year under consideration?
Income earned corresponding to the expenditure alleged to be bogus is not question and hence the entire expenditure incurred which is duly supported by the income cannot be disallowed. Genuineness of the transaction has been proved by the documentary evidence. Addition restricted to the difference in the gross profit declared as compared to the average gross profit rate of earlier five years.
M/s. EPE Process Filters & Accumulators Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee’s submissions in support of its claim u/s 37 of the Act are that it has purchased the IPL cricket match tickets to distribute them amongst its long standing customers to garner their goodwill and improve its business relations and therefore, it is […]
Learned DR submitted that the AO has failed to examine the claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings as required by the law. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the revision order passed by the learned CIT does not call for any interference.
