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...
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (hereinafter the Ld. CIT(A)), dt. 22/09/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), relating to Assessment Year 2012-13
The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer holding that gift made by the assessee towards relinquishing 50% interest in the flat No. 52 at Ajanta Apartment, Colaba, Mumbai is a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
ITO Vs Upkar Retail (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] CTR (SC) 177 : [1972] 88 ITR 192 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are […]
As assessee received salary in cash, his claim that investments were made from such salary could not be brushed aside and keeping in view the overall facts and capacity of the assessee, addition under section 69 was deleted.
Where revenue itself failed to enquire from assessee as regards the manner in which undisclosed income admitted under section 132(4) was derived, the assessee could not be held guilty of not substantiating the manner of deriving of such undisclosed income, therefore, no penalty under section 271AAA could be levied.
Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
Whether the reinvestment made by the assessee in 3 residential houses having common amenities, kitchen, common entrance, common house name, common electrical, common storage, common water, common garden, common boundary wall, common guard room, etc would give eligibility to claim exemption u/s 54 of the Act by construing all the three units as a single residential house ?
Where the income of the assessee was exempt under section 11 and the assessee was not carried on the business, section 40(a)(ia) had no application. Moreover, the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 11 by the Finance Act, 2018 making inter alia the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) applicable in case of charitable or religious trust or institution with effect from 1st April, 2019 further shows that section 40(a)(ia) hitherto was not applicable in computing income of entities registration u/s 12A of the Act.
The Registry has put a note that the applications are time barred by five days. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the settled legal position of law, the applications cannot be treated as time barred. He in this respect has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), which read as under:-
A.O. noted that the deduction under section 80IC is to be allowed on the profits derived from eligible business. The interest earned on the FDRs cannot be said that interest income earned from manufacturing activities of the assessee. It can only be said that interest income on FDRs is attributable to business activities but cannot be said that it derived from manufacturing activity of the assessee.
