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...
It was held that :- (a) Companies with extra-ordinary circumstances, like those which suffered events like merger/de-merger, impacting the financial results, could not be treated as comparables. (b) Companies having supernormal profit cannot be considered as comparable; (c) Companies which are functionally dissimilar cannot be taken as comparables. (d) Companies acting merely as intermediary having outsourced its activity cannot be considered as comparable.
There is no dispute that the assessee is maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. investment portfolio and trading portfolio. The A.O. has admitted the said position consistently in the past. It is pointed out that the shares in question which are subject matter of short term capital gain and long term capital gain are part of the investment port folios and were not part of the trading portfolio.
The scheme frame by the CBDT clearly says that where the return was filed electronically with digital signature the acknowledgment generated electronically shall be evidence for filing of the return. Wherever, the return was filed electronically without digital signature, on successful transmission, the computer shall generate acknowledgement in form ITR-V.
In our considered opinion, reliance placed by the Revenue on clause (d) to sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act to defeat the assessee’s claim for deduction in the present case is quite misplaced. Firstly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has laid down that the said provision is prospective and not retrospective in nature and therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, the plea of the Revenue that only a pure housing project is eligible for deduction is also completely misplaced having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra).
A reading of Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), makes it clear that revenues on account of mobilization are to be brought to tax in India. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra) has been rendered by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, which happens to be the jurisdictional High Court in the present case. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), therefore, is squarely applicable to this case.
A simple reading of this section suggests that in case of set off of business loss vis-a-vis depreciation, the first preference shall be given to the business loss as per the provisions of Sec. 72(1) of the Act for the simple reason that the business loss can be carried forward only upto 8 assessment years whereas the depreciation can be carried over upto unlimited period.
From a reading of section 10A(7A), it is clear that its provisions apply to a situation where an undertaking whose income is deductible under section 10A is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger before the end of the specified 10 years. In the present case the STPI undertaking of the assessee stands transferred in a scheme of demerger before the completion of the specified period and, therefore, provisions of section 10A(7A) apply.
Assessee was engaged in the speculation transaction of sale and purchase of units without taking delivery and the account was settled by crediting the difference. The Tribunal after considering section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 observed that no property in the said units passed on to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee never acquired the property in the units as the units contracted to be bought were future unascertained goods. Similarly, it could not pass on the property to the party to whom the units were contracted and therefore, there was no ‘sale’ or ‘turnover’ effected by the assessee in the legal sense for the purposes of getting the accounts audited under section 44AB.
The duty imposed by the Act upon the tax payer is to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessee ; he is not required to inform the Income-tax Officer as to what legal inference should be drawn from the facts disclosed by him nor to advise him on questions of law. Whether on the facts found or disclosed, the company was a dealer in shares, may be regarded as a conclusion on a mixed question of law and fact and from the failure on the part of the company to disclose to the Income-tax Officer this legal inference, no fault may be found with the company
A perusal of the legislative history of the provision makes it clear that the same was incorporated in the Act with effect from 01.04.1981 by the Finance Act, 1981. Initially, it had provided tax holiday of five consecutive year beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the concern undertaking begins manufacturing or production of the article, things or computer software.
