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 Mumbai dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding deletion of TDS demands under Sections 194H and 194A by following earlier or...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata quashed reassessment and Section 68 addition after finding reopening based on unverified CCM information and procedur...
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 : 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...
Shri Bhagwandas Nagla Vs ITO (International Taxation) (ITAT Hyderabad) Conclusion: TDS under section 195 was to be deducted in case payment for purchase of immovable property made to GPA (general power of attorney) holder of non-residents because, at best, GPA holder could be considered as only a conduit between assessee and the owners of property […]
Gain arising on transfer of ESOP options should be taxed as long term capital gains where the holding period was more than 3 years as assessee acquired a valuable and transferable right and the right of share constituted capital assets from the date of grant.
Payment of high remuneration to Directors cannot be disallowed by treating the same as a tool to shift profits to evade tax when the Directors have already offered the income for tax through their personal returns.
Provision of section 50C is applicable as on the date of execution of sale agreement and accordingly the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale agreement is to be taken.
DCIT Vs Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered the issue and find that this section does not cover section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Legislature does not envisage any sort of valuation for the purpose of section 68 of the Act. Indeed, valuation of preference shares is a completely different exercise […]
Assessee provided details of deposits and source from where the deposits have been made in the bank account. Only the relevant parties were not presented to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the same cannot lead to concealment.
Assessee LLP had failed to satisfy clause (e) of the proviso of Sec. 47(xiiib), therefore, the ‘transfer‘of the capital assets on the conversion of the private limited company into a LLP was to be regarded as a ‘transfer‘within the meaning of Sec. 45 and also, there was no occasion for invoking the provisions of Sec. 47A(4).
Limit of exemption of Rs. 50 lakh under section 194-IA(2) was applicable to each transferee separately as each transferee was a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed.
Addition made by AO on the reason that assessee had introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain was not correct as AO had not brought any material on record to show that assessee had paid over and above purchase consideration of shares as claimed and evident from the bank account and assessee had produced the relevant record to show the allotment of shares by the company on payment of consideration by cheque.
Difference between alleged fair market value of share and the subscribed value of shares cannot be assessed as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) as the transaction of issue of shares was carried out to comply with a covenant in the loan agreement with the bank to fund the acquisition of the business by the subsidiary in USA, therefore, such a bonafide business transaction could not be taxed under section 56(2)(vii) especially when there was not even a whisper about money laundering by the AO in the assessment order.
