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...
As the actor Shilpa Shetty was a brand ambassador for IPL team Rajasthan Royals, she was bound to render certain services without any charge to subsidiary company JIPL owned by holding company of her husband and assessee did not receive any consideration for the services rendered to JICPL, in the absence of any ‘price’, the provision of services could not be considered as an ‘international transaction under sec. 92(1).
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Though assessee had not become owner of property in question because there was no registered sale deed executed by vendor, however, becoming the owner of the property in question was not required for the purpose of section 54/54F and, therefore, no deduction could be denied to assessee.
Requirement of section 54 in the second limb is that capital gain should be used in construction of residential house and nothing more. Assessee in the instant case was the owner of super-structure constructed by utilizing capital gain and it was clear from the lease deed by which land over which construction had been put up was given on lease to assessee, therefore, deduction under sections 54 could not be disallowed.
Shri Devasamparambil Hassainar Kutty Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Revenue has not disputed the fact that the FDRs taken by the assessee are for the purpose of furnishing the security/guarantee to the companies those have awarded the contract to the assessee. Therefore, these FDRs were furnished as a performance guarantee by the assessee. Once the FDRs […]
Where the existing company acquired all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firms in the manner as provided under section 47(xiii) then the same would not be considered as transfer and there was no requirement under the provisions of section 47(xiii) that the firms should be converted into the company.
Addition made under section 68 on account of share capital received by assessee as unexplained credit was to be deleted in absence of any material or inquiry conducted by AO that the issuing companies were non-existing entities or a paper company and AO had not brought material on record to dislodge the veracity of the evidences filed by assessee.
Where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy, the actual rent received or receivable is less than ALV, the sum so received or receivable during the year is less than the sum received or receivable during year shall be annual value, then no deemed rent could be assessed.
When assessee itself had filed separate TDS statements in respect of the tax deducted at source relating to the respective flats, while processing such statements under section 200A, AO had to levy fee under section 234E taking into account the delay in filing each of the statements and the levy of fee prescribed under section 234E could not be restricted to one challan–cum–statement filed in Form no.26QB.
Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 even if he had not taken possession nor the purchase deed had been executed within the period of three years because the delay in obtaining possession and getting purchase deed executed was on account of the developer and was by reason beyond the control of assessee.
