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 : ITAT Delhi accepted the registered valuer's FMV and indexed cost after holding the AO could not reject the valuation without refer...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata allowed deduction under Section 80JJAA after holding that delayed Form 10DA filing did not defeat the claim when it w...
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 : 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...
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.
Exemption under section 11 in respect on the surplus reflected by assessees accounts was denied by AO because assessee was not registered under section 12AA, however, the matter was remanded back to AO to verify as to whether expenditure were actually incurred for the purposes of the running the institution or organizing its activities which was allowable as deduction from surplus and assessee was directed to establish its bona fides before claiming the exemption.
Since the stock sold was very old, it was not strange to sell them at reduced rate and AO had no authority to compel assessee as to at which rate, assessee had to make sale of its goods, hence, deduction of trading loss on sale of stock was allowable.
As CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration ex-parte under section 12AA without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in terms of section 12AA(1)(b)(ii), therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh examination and adjudication.
Reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) by issuing notice under section 148 but without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was invalid and void ab initio and thus liable to be quashed.
Assessee-trust was entitled to claim excess expenditure over income being deficit to be carried forward for setting it off in subsequent years as income derived from trust property had to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles were applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by trust for charitable and religious purposes in earlier years against income earned in subsequent year would be regarded as application of income in the subsequent year having regard to benevolent provisions contained in section 11 and such adjustment would be excluded from income of the trust under section 11(1)(a).
Nature of income which had been rental earning from the house property would not change just because it had been received by assessee-company formed with the object of carrying out business as builder and developer, therefore, AO had, rightly assessed the rental receipts under the head Income from house property.
Assessee was entitled to claim long term capital gain exemption under section 54 on sale of property and the same could not be denied on the ground that income tax return was not filed declaring such income.
Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the assessee to penalty under section 271(1)(c)
