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 : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
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 : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. P...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for de...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey num...
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...
Income Tax : Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Ac...
On the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred in computing long term capital gain at Rs. 99,57,265/-. 2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in not granting exemption under section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act on the amount invested for the purchase of residential plot and deposits made under capital gain in the Bank.
Provision of section 50C(1) of the Act are not applicable to section 54F for the purpose of determining the meaning of full value of consideration.
The only limitation prescribed by section 54 is that construction of new house ought to have been completed within a period of three years and said section does not prescribe any condition vis-a-vis the commencement of construction, therefore, assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54 even in respect of amount invested prior to the date of transfer of original asset.
Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of tobacco products. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 31-10-2007 declaring total income of Rs. 15,20,628.
A. Ramalingam Vs Income Tax officer (ITAT Chennai) The exemption claimed by the assessee under CBDT circular is only for seizure of gold jewellery during the course of search operation. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, it does not absolve the assessee from explaining the source for acquisition of such jewellery. Therefore, the […]
The said interest income had been earned by the assessee out of business compulsions of deposits in the ‘Debit Service Reserve Account’, hence the said interest income is linked to the business activities of the assessee. The issue is covered with the decisions of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Hence, the interest income of the assessee is ordered to be assessed as Business Income.
Where the assessee failed to specify manner in which undisclosed income was derived and also failed to deposit due taxes then the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions specified under section 271AAA(2) and hence, immunity from penalty was not available to assessee.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of plain and studded Gold and Silver jewellery. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,83,03,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses under the head Foreign Agency Commission amounting to Rs.62,12,609/-.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
Where notice was not issued by assessing officer under section 143(2) before passing order under section 143(3) read with section 147, assessment made by him was bad in law. Provisions of section 292BB are not applicable where there is failure to issue notice under section 143(2).
