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...
No addition could be made under section 153A for an unabated assessment unless incriminating materials unearthed during search qua the assessment year under consideration.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
provisions of section 142A of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of estimation of the value of the asset, property or investment and get a copy of the report from the DVO. The word ‘may’ makes it discretionary to refer the matter to the DVO. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it is mandatory.
Where assessee did not deposit sale consideration in the bank account maintained under the capital gains scheme before the due date of filing of return but otherwise purchased new house within two years, as stipulated in section 54F(1), then deduction under section 54F could not be denied to assessee.
Consideration received by assessee for use of or for granting the right to use a computer software would not amount to royalty as the amount received by assessee towards sale of software was on account of sale of ‘copyrighted article’ and not on transfer of any ‘copyright right’.Hence, the said sale proceeds could not be characterised as ‘Royalty’ as per Article 12 of the India-Ireland DTAA.
Ixia Technologies International Ltd. Vs ACIT(IT) (ITAT Kolkata) Since assessee`s case is covered by beneficial provisions of the India-Ireland DTAA, hence the retrospective amendment made in the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which provides that royalty would include consideration for transfer of all or any rights in respect of any right property, (including […]
Shri Baldev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We have gone through the orders of the authorities below in the light of the arguments on either side and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited above. In the case of Ghanshyam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that the additional amount u/s […]
DCIT Vs Esteem Textiles P. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Where AO had framed assessment under section 153C against assessee on basis of a list unearthed pursuant to a search and seizure operation at the premises of a third party, containing name of assessee as an investor, the assessment order was quashed because the said document could […]
Brijesh Jaikishin Rupani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that The income offered by assessee in income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A was the income detected during the course of search and seizure operation. The case of assessee was squarely covered by provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), because […]
Since assessment originally made was unabated on the date of search and assessment under section 153A was framed without any incriminating material found during the course of search,therefore, the same was not valid.
