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...
The issue under consideration is whether the land purchased by the assessee as agricultural land & whether the income from such sale is business income or capital gains?
AO of the searched person had not rebutted the presumption that the seized documents belonged to M/s. C Ltd but belonged to other person, i.e, assessee, therefore, issue of notice under section 153C on assessee was illegal.
Impugned bank certificate is not an incriminating document based on which the concluded assessment in the case of the assessee can be disturbed. In view of this according to us , we hold that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee in absence of any incriminating evidence leading to any unaccounted income unearthed during the course of search.
Coming to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the said section also provides that any interest, royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act on which tax is deductible at source under chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. We therefore find that both the provisions of section 195(1) as well as 40(a)(ia) of the Act talks about deduction of tax at source where the sum is chargeable under this Act.
We noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted that in the income tax code, there is a provision/ concept of block of asset and once any asset enters into block asset and claim of depreciation in very first year is allowed, in subsequent year the deprecation cannot be disallowed in case the first year is not
M/s. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the impugned assessment year, copy of which is placed at paper book page No. 20-21 shows that the reopening was made on the basis of the report of the investigation wing and there […]
There is nothing in section 40(a)(ia) to treat assessee as a defaulter where there is shortfall in deduction of TDS and if the shortfall is due to any difference of opinion as to taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can only be declared to be an assessee-in-default under section 201 and no disallowance could be made.
B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In absence of adverse material found during search, no addition could be made merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 which did not constitute conclusive evidence and having been given under pressure was immediately retracted. Additions made u/s 153A […]
णonduct of the assessee in changing stand at different level and claiming lesser agricultural income before the authorities below would clearly show that authorities below were very reasonable in estimating the agricultural income at Rs.14 lacs, though the assessee claimed lesser amount of the same subsequently. Therefore, authorities below were justified in considering Rs.10,78,544/- as income from other sources.
Nishi Kapoor Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer who has valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee shall record reasons u/s 148(2) for reassessment proceedings, otherwise issue of notice u/s 148 is not valid. Reopening notice invalid If the officer who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, was different […]
