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 of any educational institute cannot be exempted unconditionally if such institution also exists for deriving of profit. According to this provision, if any educational institution is running on commercial basis then income of such educational institution cannot be exempted from taxation. However, such institution can claim exemption u/s. 11 and 12 as element of profit is not excluded by the Legislature.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited v CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 was considering a case where the assessee had deposited its funds not immediately required by it on short term deposits with banks. The interest received on such deposits was offered by the assessee itself for tax and the assessment was completed on that basis.
The contention of the assessee that return of income in electronic form was not to accompany the report in Form 3 CEB is not correct. The assessee was required to file the report under section 92E, read with rule 10E, before the specified date i.e., the due date for filing of the return.
It is not pointed out as to how the expenses incurred are excessive or unreasonable therefore, such expenditure can be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(A)(2) of the Act. In view of this matter, we do not find any infirmity into the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Sections 50 & 50C operate in two different fields and if the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority is accepted by the purchaser/seller there cannot be any variation for limited purposes of computing the consideration received, under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The TPO while rejecting the idle capacity, however, did not discuss anything about the arms length margin fixed at 11.96 per cent. This indicates that assessee’s TP study has not been considered by the TPO. The assessee has selected ten comparable companies and summary of net cost + margin varies from -6.04 per cent to 19.06 per cent.
Whether this agreed addition is to be added while calculating book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Section 115JB provides that where in the case of an assessee being a Company, the income tax payable on total income as computed under this Act is less than 10% (applicable in the impugned Assessment Year) of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee.
The Explanation to section 92(1) of the Act clarifies that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP and therefore the disallowance is made under section 92(1) and not under section 40A(2) of the Act.
As per Explanation 7; no penalty is leviable if the assessee proves that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 92C and in the manner prescribed under section in good faith and with due diligence.
Having been served with a legal notice for the levy of penalty u/s. 271B, it was incumbent on the assessee to cause to comply with the provision, at least for the second year and, in any case, seek legal opinion in its respect. Rather, it could have, on its own, requested the AO not levy the penalty for that year (i.e., A.Y. 2006-07), explaining that the non-audit of its accounts u/s. 44AB stood caused only due to its ignorance of law,
