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...
whether or not addition of Rs 5,739.60 crores (Rs 5739,60,05,089) made by the Assessing Officer with respect to the disallowance of loss on transfer of telecom infrastructure is justified, tenable in law and on the facts of this case.
The issue – The principal; rather, the sole issue arising in the instant appeal; the assessee not pressing its ground no.1 assailing the impugned assessment on the question of jurisdiction (which we find to have been, though assumed, not pressed even before the first appellate authority, withdrawing the objection vide letter dated 07.01.2013)
Sec.50 is only to deal capital gain as short term capital gain and not to deem the asset as short term capital asset. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sec. 50 converts long term capital asset into a short term capital asset
The Hon’ble Chennai ITAT has in the case of B.Sivasubramanian,v/s ITO has held that there is no condition in the provisions of SEC 54F of the I.T Act,1961 that warrants that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority.
The provisions of section 54F mandates the construction of a residential house, within the period specified. However, there is no condition that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. If any person constructs a house without approval of building plan, he will be raising construction at his own risk and cost. As far as for availing exemption u/s.54F, approval of building plan is not necessary.
Whether for the purpose of determining arm’s length price of international transactions of the assessee-company, providing back office support services to their overseas associated enterprises, companies performing KPO functions should be considered as comparable?
A bare reading of section 54F clearly shows that the assessee is entitled for exemption in case he / she constructs a residential house within a period of three years after the sale of the capital asset. However, sub clause (4) of section 54F clearly says that the unutilized portion of the net sale consideration which is otherwise liable for capital gain tax shall be deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the period of due date for filing return of income u/s 139.
Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search
Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under
Condition of limiting commercial establishment/shops to 2000 sq.ft, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005 would be applicable for the project approved on or after 1.4.2005 and where the approval of the project was prior to 31.3.2005, the amended provision would have no application for those projects.
