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...
AO, having accepted the fact that identity of subscribers had been proved, could not have proceeded to make addition only on the basis of charging higher premium, because charging higher premium on issue of shares was a decision between parties and AO would not have any role to play as long as genuineness of transaction was not in doubt. Therefore, addition on mere suspicion under section 68 could not be sustained.
Since the booking of bare shell of a flat was a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction was to be looked into which was as per provision of section 54, therefore, AO was directed to allow benefit to assessee as claimed u/s.54.
We note that the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. We note that the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to Learned Counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination.
Swati Luthra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee had entered into genuine transaction of sale and purchase of shares and therefore, satisfied the conditions of Section 10(38) as no law prohibits purchase of shares in cash and it was the option of the buyer of shares to keep the shares either in Demat form or […]
Since the director was not a shareholder when bonus was paid to him and also the bonus was not paid out of the earlier years’ accumulated profits, therefore, deduction of bonus paid to director was allowable under 36(1)(ii).
Where notice under section 143(2) was not issued within the time limit prescribed in proviso to section 143(2), the assessment framed under section 143(3) pursuant to such notice was invalid and accordingly, the same was liable to be quashed.
Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) It is settled position in law that the question of Jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence. The proprietary of Notice under section 148, based upon ‘reasons recorded’ is not dependent upon the objection or no objection by the assessee at the stage of assessment. If the Reasons […]
ACIT Vs Rohini Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the Page Nos. 6-13 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee shows that the assessee has filed certain reconciliation statements in respect of the shortfall of investments u/s. 68 added by the AO. The same are scanned and made a part of […]
Where the documentary evidences furnished by assessee clearly supported the claim of exemption under section 10(38) on account of sale of securities that assessee entered into genuine transaction of sale of shares through recognized exchange upon which STT had also been paid and there was no other evidence available on record against assessee so as to make the impugned addition under section 68, accordingly, addition was to be deleted.
The issue under consideration is that the Income of interest received on advances should be considered as income from other sources or not?
