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...
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Vaghasia Associates, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some estimated labour payment was written on the projected profit & loss account, the addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be made.
In case of ACIT vs. M/s. Prasad Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) assessee was owner of factory building. It allotted certain space therein to its sister concern for enabling it to carry on their business in lieu of charging rent.
In case of M/s. AT & T Global Business Services India Pvt.Ltd. VS. ITO , assessee-company, engaged in business of software development and providing application services to its AE. TPO on basis of mean margin earned by his own set of comparables
In the case of Shri Kaushik B. Patel Vs. D.C.I.T it was held by ITAT Ahmedabad that routine business transactions/salary payments do not fall under the purview of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case the assessee’s books nowhere treat the sums received as loan and advances to have been received from the said Company.
ITAT Mumbai held in J. Gala Vs DCIT that for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) revenue has to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, without which penalty could not be levied. Further for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
ITAT Delhi held in Siem Offshore Inc Vs Dy. DIT (International Taxation) that any payment received (whether in India or outside India) by an assessee who falls within sec 44BB would be taxed as per the provisions contained u/s 44BB. So the reimbursement of expenses would also be taxed u/s 44BB.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in M/s Nirmala Developers Vs ITO that it was not necessary to be the owner of the land to claim the deduction u/s 80IB(10). But the necessary condition to claim the deduction u/s 80(IB)10 was that the assessee had borne the all expenses and took all the risk involved in the project.
ITAT Kolkatta held in Swew Benefit Company Vs DCIT that for disallowing expenses u/s 14A i.e expense incurred for non-taxable income, there had to be some logical strong basis like rule 8D or something else but it could not be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in ACIT Vs Amrapali Capital & Financial services Ltd that if the assessee had by mistake wrongly computed its computation of income because of unawareness of the law and he had not revised it return within the time mentioned u/s 139(5)
In the case of Govats Foundation v ITO (Exemption) it is held by ITAT-Hyderabad that the approval u/s 80G(5) could be granted to charitable institution if the certificate granted u/s 12A has not been withdrawn.
