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 upheld denial of Section 10(38) exemption and Section 68 addition on alleged sham share transactions while remanding computat...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld deletion of a Section 68 addition on demonetisation cash deposits after finding the deposits were supported by audited...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted the Section 69A addition on demonetisation cash deposits after finding the recorded cash sales, stock records and VAT...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted the Section 68 addition on ₹2.74 crore cash deposits, holding that recorded sales, audited books, VAT records and s...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted the Section 68 addition on ₹80 lakh cash deposits, holding that audited cash sales recorded in books could not be t...
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...
This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the Ld. Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein he has revised the order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing officer on 24.02.2015 by exercising his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 8thMarch, 2017.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss/ expenditure of Rs. 20892603/- suffered/ incurred by the appellant as a result of encashment of bank guarantee furnished to Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as security for the due and punctual discharge of obligations under the Concession Agreement.
Where amount forfeited by assessee against cancellation of booking of flat was subject-matter of civil suit, it could not be said that there was cessation of liability so as to tax such amount as assessee’s income.
Deduction under section 24(b) and computation of capital gains under section 48 being altogether different provisions, interest paid to bank for acquiring capital asset would be eligible as part of cost of acquisition, even if same had been claimed under section 24(b) while computing income from housing property.
Cromption Greaves Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) This M.A. has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the tribunal in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013 dated 01-02-2016 . The learned counsel for the assessee pressed only one ground before the Bench that the tribunal order dated 01-02-2016 was passed beyond period of 90 […]
Sunil Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act after a period of […]
ACIT Vs M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) 1. Expenses on replantation without any expansion of plantation area or replantation in an abandoned area are not capital expenditure Capital expenditure involves an investment increasing the capital for higher profit. The expansion means extension of plantation to an additional area. An area already abandoned, […]
There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid.
As per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of intangible asset and trade mark specifically includes brand names.It was held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal that brand is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act.
In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at the rate of 0.5% of investments which actually have resulted in the exempt dividend income.
