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...
We find that it is clear from letter dated 19-12-2009 that assessee has explained the position regarding liabilities in respect of three parties and even confirmation of M/s Surekha Overseas was filed. This reply clearly shows that the liabilities were still outstanding. Therefore, in our opinion, ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that since the liabilities are still outstanding, the provisions of sec.41[1] are not attracted.
On Appeal ITAT held that that the letting out of terrace has to be assessed under the head Income From House Property as against Income From Other Sources assessed by the Assessing Officer and also allow deduction provided under section 24 of the Act.
In regard to jewellery found on person and in the bedroom of Smt. S.H. Khorakiwala, it was stated before the Assessing Officer that the same was received at the time of her marriage. The Assessing Officer accepted the confirmation of mother but the confirmation of NRI gifts from relatives was not accepted. He observed that whether they had purchased the jewellery abroad and gifted to Smt. Samina H. Khorakiwala in which case the customs clearance receipt should have been filed.
Now, we take-up the appeals for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. The only common issue in both the appeals is in respect of deduction u/s.10A which was denied by the A.O. on the reason that the assessee company is formed by splitting and reconstruction of the existing business/undertaking.
In this appeal, the only issue urged by the assessee is whether the AO was justified in netting the provision made for bad and doubtful debts, i.e. netting of new provision made during the year under consideration and the provision of earlier years written back during the year. As stated earlier, it will only be an academic exercise to address this issue.
We may without prejudice also examine the assessee’s claim of being a primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank. The Revenue has rejected the assessee’s claim on the ground that it does not meet the definition thereof inasmuch as its area of operation is not confined to a Taluk (Explanation (b) of section 80P (4)). In this regard, we firstly observe that the assessee has not clarified if it is a member of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Land Development Bank and, if so, since when. Secondly, it has not shown that its principal object is to provide long term credit for agricultural and rural development activities, which constitutes the defining attribute of such a bank, with its object clause nowhere indicating so.
The CIT(A) however agreed with alternate plea of the assessee that if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the payments made by the assessee are included by the payees in their returns of income, and taxes have been paid by them thereon, the Assessing Officer may modify the demand raised u/s 201(1).
Clause (d) inserted in section 801B[10) with effect from April 1, 2005, is prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied for the period prior to April 1, 2005. Since deduction under section 801B[1Oj were on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority as a whole. ITAT held that once the project is approved by the local authorities, then deduction has to be allowed on the whole of the project .
The Ld. Counsel submits that company has been paying the Directors remuneration as a profit commission as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, after determination of the profits. The assessee-company also is performance incentives to the Managers. He submitted that Mr. S. Rao was Chairman & Managing Director of the assessee company who withdrew from the active participation of the company’s business and Mr. Anil S. Rao was paid a commission of Rs.81,39,200/- @ 8% of the profit which as per the resolution passed by the Board. We have also heard Ld. D.R. We find that the profit commission which is paid to the Director is approved in the general meeting (G.M.) of the shareholders and required evidence was filed before the Ld. CIT (A).
ITAT held that profits from participation of cargo under ‘Slot Arrangement’ are not eligible for benefit of Article 8 of the India-Germany tax treaty (the tax treaty) in case the mother vessels are not owned, hired or chartered by the taxpayer.
