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...
Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly the assessee has received a donation of INR 16265000/– from 1038 individuals and ld CIT (A) has noted that same is credited to the income and expenditure account of the assessee, However ld AO has noted that same is credited as Corpus […]
Assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc., has been debited, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee actually engaged himself not in the transportation business, but only facilitating or arranging transportation for various parties and he is a mere lorry booking agent. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source and to the facts of the case the provisions under section 194C of the Act have no application.
From ‘date of allotment’ of capital asset, i.e., 15-2-2007 the holding period was more than 36 months on sale of property on 4-8-2010 as such, revenue authorities were not justified in treating the holding period from date of registration of property, i.e., 30-9-2009 and treating it as short-term capital gains, deduction under section 54F was, therefore, allowable.
ACIT Vs Ashwin S. Bhalekar Beamon Chambers (ITAT Mumbai) Claim of the assessee that extinguishment of rights in the capital asset is a transfer of capital asset and capital gains and consequent allowance of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The facts clearly show that the extinguishment of assessee’s right in Flat […]
Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Whether the subscription fee can be treated as fees for technical services. As discussed earlier, it is evident that the assessee has collated data from various journals and articles and put them in a structured manner in the database to make it more user friendly and beneficial […]
Shiv Raj Sharma Shiksha Samiti Bilaspur Vs CIT (ITAT Lucknow) It is well settled position of law that at the time of granting approval under Section 80G of the Act, what is to be examined is the object of the trust and so far as the aspect of income is concerned, the same can be […]
Shri Ashok Kumar Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that first of all, the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order has simply made the addition on the ground that assessee during the course of survey has offered sum of Rs.20 lacs towards investment in furnishing and in equipments in showroom over and above the […]
In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as a reasonable cause.
Since no notice under section 143(2) had been issued for completion of the re-assessment proceedings, therefore, the re-assessment order itself was bad in law and the same could not be revised under section 263.
AO was not justified in holding that losses incurred by assessee due to selling goods at less than cost price to e-commerce operators was to create marketing intangibles assets and therefore the loss to the extent it was created due to predatory pricing should be regarded as capital expenditure incurred by assessee and should be disallowed because where a trader transferred his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction was a bonafide one, the taxing authority could not take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the books results of assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total income of assessee in the manner in which he did, what could be taxed was only income that accrues or arises as laid down in Sec.5, nothing beyond Sec.5 could be brought to tax.
