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...
Apprehension of the assessees that they have been made liable to pay a portion of tax u/s 179 of the Act, is unwarranted and misconceived. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, no person can be made liable to pay any tax for himself or on behalf of any other entity for which he has been associated unless a specific order is passed in the matter. In the present case, no such order u/s 179 of the Act has been passed.
The Ld DR argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 10B of the Act as the assessee had not filed prescribed audit report and had got software developed from outside. He further argued that assessee had not filed certified copies of invoices.
Business of the taxpayer is banking and the business connection between the tenant and taxpayer has nothing to do with banking operation carried on by the taxpayer. Further, the Kerala High Court in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 568 has also taken a similar view. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of rental income.
It is settled position of law that where any issue is debatable, it cannot be corrected u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 is relevant wherein an action taken by Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act was found to be illegal.
Merely because the Assessing Officer invoked section 50C(2) and adopted guideline value to be the actual sale consideration and made addition in the assessee’s income automatically become a case attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.
Rs. 27,650/- was paid by the assessee to various Advocates and Consultants in relation to conferences, advice and consultation pertaining to Income-tax matters, therefore, the said payments do not fall within the purview of section 80VV of the Act. The said section restricts deduction in respect of expenses incurred by an assessee in respect of any proceedings before any Income-tax Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or any Court relating to the determination of any liability under the Income-tax Act by way of tax, penalty or interest. In other words Section 80VV of the Act seeks to restrict the allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in respect of a specific proceeding under the Act. Therefore, the said section has no application.
Disallowance u/s 14A is contemplated in respect of exempt income and not which is eligible for deduction under any relevant provision. It is impermissible to mix both the deduction and exemption provisions and then take them in one stride for computing disallowance u/s 14A.
As far as the provisions of the Act is concerned, now it has been streamlined that deemed dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power.
There cannot be any dispute that an assessee who is having losses cannot be compelled to pay the income-tax, as the Income-tax Act does not provide for such a situation, exception being the MAT provisions in the case of companies. What is required to be seen as per the circular issued by CBDT and which was approved by Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226, is that ‘Taxes due’ have been paid by the deductee-assessee.
The first issue before us is whether the assessee is a developer and builder and, thus, entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) qua the Sadguru Krupa Project, or only a Contractor and, thus, not so entitled. No argument, much less materials, has been advanced or adduced before us
