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...
Income Tax is a code in itself and for levying taxes certain terms have been defined in a particular manner and they carry special meanings. Word ‘person’ is one among them. So, in our humble opinion, State Government is a person for purposes of collecting tax at sources as per the provisions of Sec 206C of the Act.
On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it can be seen that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction under sec.80IB of the Act since the assessee unit is located in an industrially back-ward State specified in VIII Schedule and is governed by the provisions of sub-sec. (iv) of Sec.80IB of the I.T. Act. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by analyzing the provisions of the Act held that the assessees,
The assessee had declared exempt income and on asking of the Assessing Officer, it had itself computed the disallowance amount of Rs. 4,83,414/- under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and exactly the same very amount has been disallowed. In our opinion, once the assessee itself computed the disallowance, instead of challenging the very applicability of the provisions, we do not find any force in the cross objections preferred by the assessee. Consequently, we do not find any merit either in the appeal filed by the Revenue or Cross Objections at the behest of the assessee.
If Assessee Possess more than one house, it can result in denial of deduction under section 54F relief even if one of them is in bad condition.
This was an appeal filed by the department against the penalty deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a software company claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. During the quantum proceedings, the then assessing officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act of Rs. 31,52,432/- on the ground that the approval granted to the assessee
As per Ld Counsel for assessee, the anticipated profits are notional profits in this year and are realized in the next year and therefore, they are taxable in the next year. Therefore, as per Sri Mehta, the addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by the CIT(A). On the other hand, Ld DR for the revenue could not demonstrate if the profits are realized in this year.
Section 194H talks about the payment to a recipient which is the income by way of commission or brokerage. It does not require that the relationship between the payer and the payee should be of a principal and agent. The Explanation to section 194 elaborates on the terms ‘commission or brokerage’ by including any payment received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person. Thus, it is clear that the provisions of section 194H do not require any formal contract of agency.
‘Let us assume that Mr. ‘A’ purchases a machine which is very much required by him for his business purpose but for such acquisition of machine by him, he paid some extra price as per the A.O. This is not the case of the A.O. that using of machine for business purpose is not the main purpose of acquiring of machine and in that situation, in our humble opinion, the A.O. cannot invoke Exp.(3) to Section 43(1) of the Act.
Carrying out drug trial is essential for approval of the drug in question to be sold in the public and hence, in our considered opinion, clinical drug trial cannot be carried out inside an in-house research facility i.e. usually the laboratory.
It is commonly believed and often said that change is the only concept that never undergoes any change or can be changed. On the contrary, what is never realised or tacitly conceded is that every known concept is changed, violently more often than not, according to individual’s own perception or perspective; and to suit own purpose.
