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 : Bengaluru ITAT restored section 12AB and consequential section 80G applications after the trust produced fire and structural safet...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT restored a section 12AB registration application, holding absence of an irrevocability clause alone cannot justify rej...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held sections 234B and 234C interest must be excluded from tax effect, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as below the CB...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹6.50 lakh section 68 addition, holding repayment of an earlier bank-transferred loan cannot be treated as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bengaluru deleted ad hoc commission and interest disallowances, holding Section 40A(2)(b) inapplicable to interest paid to a ...
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...
NKC Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It could be seen from the assessment order that while dealing with the issue of allowability of the bank guarantee commission, learned Assessing Officer held that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was […]
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The only dispute in the instant appeal is regarding the treatment of the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money amounting to Rs. 41,61,000/- as business loss or capital loss. While the loss is not in dispute, according to the assessee it is a business […]
Assessee is entitled to include interest in the capital cost while computing capital gains U/s 48 of the Act. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the order of a co‑ordinate bench.
Sakharam Bhondve Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the deduction u/s 54F for reinvestment against Capital gain in the name of wife and son will be allowed or not? As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra): “It also noted that a […]
The ITAT Ahmedabad has harped upon the mechanical practices adopted by the Assessing Officers to make addition u/s 68. The moot point is that a sale which already forms part of books of account cannot be added again u/s 68 due to the reasons that Sales are already recorded in the books of accounts and the addition of the same amounts to double taxation. A prejudiced view on sale cannot be drawn when purchases are accepted without any reservation. Section 68 connotate amount credits in books of account remained unexplained need to be added. Recorded sales are not unexplained cash credits.
AO was not justified in treating assessee’s transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify the cost of acquisition and now the onus was on the Revenue to bring on record the details of the cases to justify the actual prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase of land by assessee.
A perusal of sub-section (2) of section 72A read with rule 9C reveals that condition of minimum level of production is to be seen at the end of four years and in case of non-fulfillment of the same set-off of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation, already claimed, would be chargeable to tax as income of the fourth year as per sub-section (3) of section 72A.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
Sudha Eashwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assesse is claiming exemption by way of long term capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38) of the 1961 Act and onus is on the assessee to prove that these gains are genuine […]
The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition.
