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...
Liability need not to always be a contractual one. On the basis of understanding between the two parties, both sides have passed necessary accounting entries. It was a genuine transaction. Since the assessee was unable to complete the SEZ it transferred the land to the sister concern IGICPL.
Here the assessee originally did not have the correct PANs of all the persons from whose payments, tax at source was required to be deducted. Despite that, the assessee did deduct tax at source and paid the amount to the exchequer well in time. The only fault of the assessee was in not filling PANs of some of the deductees which were not available at the time of filing e-returns. As soon as the AO issued notice for imposing penalty u/s 272B, the assessee obtained the relevant PANs and complied with the requirement by filing the revised statement.
Respective court was of the view that section 68 has no application because the same had already been taken in income of the assessee so it no where remains undisclosed. Moreover the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the credit worthiness of the donor by giving the list of the same
Assessing Officer has wrongly stated that Shri Prithvi Singh, father of the assessee has stated in his statement that he had no agricultural land in his name. Since, as per the Statement recorded by AO it is been observed that that Shri Prithvi Singh (father of the assessee) has stated that he has
D.R for the revenue argues that no appeal lies against Appeal Effect Order passed by Assessing officer. The appellant may apply to the Assessing Officer for rectification U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but no appeal be filed against appeal effect order passed by AO.
The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.
Section 1115JB is non-obstante section and a complete code by itself, which provides that in case of a company, the income tax payable on the total income is computed under the Income tax Act in respect of any previous year is less than 7.5% (which percentage has been increased from time to time) of its book profit,
These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue directed against two separate orders of Learned CIT (A) – II Lucknow both dated 07.01.2013 for A.Y. 2008 – 09 and 2009 – 10. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience.
Regarding the treatment of Arranger fees as fees for technical services, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had treated it to be in the nature of service fee for managing and arranging the finance and, hence, it is the consideration for rendering managerial and consultancy services.
Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the expenses of earlier year cannot be allowed in the present year because the assessee had not been able to furnish any evidence to show that the above expenses have crystallized in the present year.
