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...
Assessee was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of Rs.1,30,000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was Rs. 16,75,000/-. 2. The assessee on 28.02.2004 entered into an Agreement to sell in respect of this plot with M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd through its Director […]
It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded.
In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
The ITAT Mumbai in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v. DCIT, held that the sale consideration received by a Singapore based Company on sale of debt instrument is not taxable as capital gain under the Income Tax Act in view of article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs GKK Capital Markets (P)Ltd 392 ITR 196 (Calcutta) has taken a view that the shares held as stock in trade and the expenses in relation to shares so held cannot be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision and the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case, we are of the view that order of CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference.
This amount represents difference between the amount payable as shown in the books of account under the sales tax deferral scheme of Government of Maharashtra, availed by the company and that paid under the Pre- payment scheme on the basis of Net Present value of the amount due, as pe
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that if a cheque is encashed by the builder after the deadline for filing income-tax return, it will not debar the taxpayer from claiming I-T exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which is available on reinvestment of long term capital gains in residential property.
When the shares were found to be credited and debited in the DEMAT account and sale of shares were found to be genuine, then what is the basis to contend that purchases of the said shares were not made by the appellant.
As the assessee was not drawing any salary from POL then in our considered view the perquisites cannot be determined in terms of the provision of Sec. 17(2) r.w.r. 3 of the Rules.
