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 : Mumbai ITAT condoned a 917-day delay and directed that bogus purchase addition be limited to the gross profit element where sales ...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT restored section 12AB registration and 80G approval applications for fresh adjudication after finding relevant aspects...
Income Tax : Bengaluru ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on reassessment and section 80P issues after setting aside the...
Income Tax : Bengaluru ITAT allowed deduction of ₹1.475 crore success fee under section 48(i), holding advisory services for share divestment...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted additions under section 41(1) and held that non-response to notices alone could not render supported sundry c...
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...
Tariqrashid M. Munshi Vs I.T.O (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT held that assessee deserve to be penalized for non-appearance before theCIT (A) and Assessing Officer and imposes penalty of Rs. 5000/- upon the assessee and instructed him to deposit the same in the Income Tax Office before the commencement of his proceedings before the AO. FULL TEXT […]
Assessee is a company which had undertaken development of integrated township. The assessee had claimed the license fees received from the persons for the use of the IT Parks provided along with various infra structural and other facilities and services under the head ‘Income from business’. However, the AO had considered the same under the head ‘Income from house property’.
The question before us is, whether the receipts derived from leasing out of the cinema hall, along with furniture & fixtures, plant & machineries and other amenities, was ‘business income’ as contended by the assessee or ‘income from other sources’ as treated by the Department.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 68 against unexplained creditors will be sustainable in law? Assessee Can Asked to Prove the Source of Credits in his Books of Accounts but Not Source of Source.
Where no assessment proceedings are pending on the date of search and seizure proceedings, the assessment under section 153A can be carried out only on the basis of seized material and where no incriminating material was unearthed during the course of search proceedings, addition could not be made in the hands of assessee.
NEWS DIRECT TAX 1. CBDT prescribes ‘Other Electronics Modes’ for the purpose of electronic payments & receipts. [Ref: NOTIFICATION NO. 8/2020 [G.S.R. 56(E)/ F.NO.370142/14/2019-TPL], DATED 29-1-2020] 2. CBDT notifies ‘Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology’ for the purpose of sec. 35 deduction. [Ref: NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 389(E) [NO. 7/2020/F. NO. 203/02/2019(ITA-II)], DATED 28-1-2020] 3. CBDT proposes new Form […]
DCIT Vs. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has admittedly sold the agricultural land as it is so there were no intention to do any business activity, therefore, period of holding would not be relevant. The intention of the assessee is therefore clear that assessee purchased the agricultural land and sold the […]
Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh Vs CIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is pertinent to note that when the assessee is maintaining various Gaushalas then production of milk is bound to happen and dealing in purchase and sale of milk & milk products as well as cattle feed is nothing but the activity in furtherance of the objects […]
Receipts of advance against sale of commercial space is not a receipt in the nature of loan or advance as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which attracts the provisions of in that section as the said advance is in the nature of business advance which did not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee can challenge the order of AO for which he has agreed before without there being any contrary evidence?
