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...
As per the amended law, development of infrastructure facility is sufficient for claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4) with effect from assessment year 2002-03. The relevant assessment year under consideration is also assessment year 2002-03 for which amended provisions of law is applicable.
As far as trade advances are concerned, there is no question of applicability of the provisions of section. 194. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) collected the details of advances categorized into trade advances and processing charges. Though he restricted the applicability of TDS provisions only to cash advances,
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of supply of LPG to its customers. It supplied the LPG cylinders to its customers on lease basis and collected security deposits. The customers can return the cylinders and take back the security deposits. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the customers have returned the cylinders and taken back the security deposits.
In this case as found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings had called for the particulars regarding various items of income going into the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, for which the assessee had given the requisite details and particulars. Now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to hold that the very same items of receipt has to be excluded in computing relief under section 80HHC. In other words, the Assessing Officer, on a reappraisal of the very same details, which was called for by him and furnished by the assessee, would like to come to a different conclusion. This clearly tantamounts to reopening is merely on a change of opinion.
While scrutinizing the balance sheet of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- from M/s. Third Eye Qualitative Researchers Pvt. Ltd. of which she is a director having substantial interest. Accordingly, the said loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- was added as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The AO sought explanation u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1. The assessee furnished detailed reply dt. 6.3.2009. The explanation of the assessee was rejected by AO who levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,20,310/-.
Allahabad Bank Vs. DCIT Banks eligible to claim deduction for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of advances and also claim provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). To conclude, we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1) (vii) and 36(1) (viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will be covered under the main part of Section 36(1) (vii), while the proviso will operate in cases under clause (viia) to limit deduction to the extent of difference between the debt or part thereof written off in the previous year and credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia) . The proviso to Section 36(1) (vii) will relate to cases covered under Section 36(1) (viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2) (v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1) (vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. This, obviously, would be subject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36.
, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in their decision dated 23.11.2011 ITA no. 302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 in CIT Vs. Virgin Creations, held that that amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was retrospective from 1.4.2005. The ld. AR pointed out that this is the sole decision rendered by a High Court at the moment on the issue. Following the view in this decision, co-ordinate Bench in their decision dated 11.4.2012 in Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT no.1321/Mum./2009 for the AY 2005-06 and the decision dated 10.5.2012 in ITA no. 717/Bang/2011for the AY 2008-09 in ACIT Vs. M.K. Gurumurthy also held that the aforesaid amendment is applicable retrospectively w.e.f 1.4.2005.
As per the definition of ‘person’ u/s 2(31), a minor is an assessable entity even though his income is clubbed u/s 64(1A) of the Act in the hands of his parents. A minor is a person distinct from his parents and is also an individual. There is no bar in separately allotting bonds upto Rs. 50,00,000 to each such person. There is no mentioned limit on the deduction allowable to an assessee under section 54EC.(The limit of Rs.50 lakhs is ceiling on investment that may be made by an assessee and not a ceiling on deduction that may be allowed to an assessee). Thus, AO was not right in disallowing deductions in respect of bonds invested by minor children of the assessee by applying the Rs.50 lakhs limit.
Directors of the company have undergone foreign travelling for the purpose of export and looking for the business avenues abroad. The details submitted by the assessee though only provides the date of travelling, details of country visited and amount of fare, visa charges and other miscellaneous expenses incurred, however, the Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that the foreign travelling was for personal purposes.
this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT Vs Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 wherein it has been held that in case of company which are liable to tax u/s. 115JB / minimum alternative tax , have to pay interest u/s. 234B/234C of the Act.
