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...
Opportunity of being heard is little more than serving a notice on assessee. It is not an empty formality. Without giving a proper opportunity to assessee, revision proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be finalized as the provisions of Section 263 mandates that the CIT may pass such orders after giving an opportunity of being heard. Since […]
In ACIT v. Tripti Menthol Industries, the ITAT, Ahmedabad bench held that Security Guards employed by the assessee-unit must be considered as part of the workers engaged in the manufacturing process for the purpose of giving benefit under Section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
When the amount which was deposited in the bank was not an amount due to members and it was not the liability of the society to the members then the interest earned from the deposits in the bank was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P (1) as well as 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Since advertising agency only acting as an intermediary between assessee radio broadcasting station and the advertiser, raised bills to the advertiser on net amount charged by the assessee, charging separate commission from the advertiser, deduction from the gross amount was in the nature of discount only and not commission, therefore, liability to deduct tax under section 194H did not get attracted.
Notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
In a significant ruling, the ITAT Delhi held that approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not a mandatory requirement to allow deduction of contribution towards EPF under section 38(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has framed the scheme under the Employees provident Fund Act, 1952.
Challenging the order dated 3-5-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the assessing officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, deriving income from house property, filed its return of income on 18-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 1.5 crores. The assessing officer completed the assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, on 4-12-2009, determining its income at Rs. (-)9.46 lakhs.
The Delhi ITAT, in a recent ruling, held that imposing penalty by quoting wrong section would not itself make the entire proceedings invalid if the assessee had not raised any objection during pre-assessment stage and has co-operated with the proceedings.
if relevant details of address or PAN Identity are furnished to the Department along with the copies of shareholder register, share application form, share transfer register etc, it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by assessee.
Where AO had only considered the discrepancy regarding gross receipts but did not carry out any inquiry in regard to the nexus between business receipts and cash deposits which was the specific direction of the Tribunal, Commissioner was justified in making revision order since the order was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
