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...
Deduction u/s 54 of the Act is also available even if the land, which was appurtenant to the residential house, is sold and it is not necessary that the whole of the residential house should be sold because the legislature has used the words or which is distinctive in nature.
The assessee is a charitable trust and has challenged the confirmation of the order of the AO where he disallowed the accumulation of the 15% even when the income was allowed u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO observed that if the trust is not left with surplus and there is deficit, then there can be no accumulation made. He further stated that accumulation or setting apart of 15% of income has been allowed by virtue of provision of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, when assessee is unable to spend the entire amount and where the entire amount has been spent, there is no surplus left that can be accumulated.
It cannot be denied that expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of developing housing project and not allowable by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) would ultimately go to increase assessee’s profit from such business and profit as computed after making the dis allowance would, therefore, qualify for deduction under section 10A.
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee claim for its exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short BC the Act CC). Appeal has been filed with a delay of ten days. Condonation petition has been filed. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted.
A partnership firm purchased property from NRI but failed to deduct TDS u/s 195. The ADIT (International Taxation) raised demand comprising tax and interest by issuing notice to one of the partners of the firm in his individual capacity.
ITAT held that that the payment made by the assessee to ICC amounting to Rs. 4.56 crore as `Rights fee’ is not in the nature of `Royalty’ or `Fees for technical services’ covered u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1(vii) of the Act and as such the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on this payment. Ex consequenti, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted.
It is very strange that FAA,being a judicial authority,has held that non providing opportunity of cross examination would not vitiate the assessment proceedings.If the AO/assessee wants to rely upon the statements of someone it is their duty to prove the truthfulness of such statements.
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) on common grounds. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off through this consolidated order.
What has been sold was ancestral agricultural land which belongs to the HUF and it has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF after the death of Sh. Amarchand. There is no partition of HUF and there is no finding of any partition given by the Assessing Officer u/s 171 of the Act.
It is clear from the statutory provisions of the MV Act as well as the law laid down in judicial pronouncements that payments made for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law and which are not compensatory in nature cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s.37(1) read with Explanation thereto.
