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 have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the tax effect in the present case is below Rs.3 lakh and we find that as per this Board instruction No.3 dated 9.2.2011, the limit of tax effect for filing the appeal before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.3 lakhs and the same for filing appeal before Hon’ble High Court has been increased to Rs.10 lakhs. In the case of CIT v. Rajan Ramanee (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has applied this Board instruction dated 9.2.2011 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue because of low tax effect.
U/s 250(4), the CIT (A) has the power to direct enquiry and call for evidence from the assessee. Under Rule 46A, the assessee has the right to ask for the admission of additional evidence. If the CIT (A) exercises his powers u/s 250(4) to call for additional evidence, the AO need not be given an opportunity to show-cause. However, if the CIT (A) acts on an application under Rule 46A, then the requirement of giving the AO an opportunity as per Rule 46A(3) is mandatory. The argument that in all cases where additional evidence is admitted, the CIT (A) should be considered to have exercised his powers u/s 250(4) is not acceptable as it will render Rule 46A redundant.
The assessee is a owner/host of website www.shaadhi.com where individuals can register and exchange the relevant information for matrimonial alliances on payment of appropriate subscription amount. The facility is available to the resident as well as non residents. Vide service order dated 14.6.2004, the assessee availed the service of Rackspace. The said contract was extended and modified on 1.1.2007. The Rackspace offered advanced type of dedicated hosting solution to the assessee. The services provided by Rackspace to the assessee are stated by the Assessing Officer in the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) in para 3 as under:
The assessee was in the business of offset printing and typesetting. It admittedly had converted this land and factory building into stock-in-trade. The Minutes of the assessee-company did the conversion of the land and factory building into stock-in-trade and the business assets of the assessee no more survived as the business asset eligible for depreciation. Once this happens, the business of the assessee would be deemed to have been discontinued.
It is not in dispute that there were cash deposits of the equivalent amounts in the bank accounts of the creditors just before advancing loan to the assessee or on the date of issuing cheques to the assessee. In the case of the creditor, ‘RS’, his bank statement is filed in which Rs. 2,50,000 has been deposited, but neither it is mentioned that it was cash nor it is mentioned how the amount similar to the credit was credited in his bank account.
In a lease transaction also there can be only one owner of the asset, that is, either the lessor or lessee and not both of them or either of them at their discretion. Whereas in the case of operating lease, it is the lessor who is the real owner of the asset, but in case of finance lease, it is the lessee who is to be regarded as the real owner of the asset. Ex consequenti only the lessor can claim depreciation in case of an operating lease and the lessee in a case of finance lease. There is no question of deciding between the lessor and the lessee, as to who should be conferred the benefit of depreciation allowance. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it can be seen that it is a case of finance lease agreement. The only and the inescapable conclusion which in our considered opinion follows is that the real owner of the leased property is Indo Gulf Fertilizer & Chemical Corporation Limited and not the assessee. We, therefore, decline to grant any depreciation to the assessee-lessor. However the lessee, if so advised, may take recourse to the legal remedy if any, for the grant of depreciation.
ITAT Mumbai ruling: Transponder2hire charges not ‘royalty.’ Times Global wins tax case vs. DCIT for A.Y. 2007-08. Consultancy fee allowed. Full details here.
Non-availability of the acknowledgement of the receipt cannot be the sole basis on which the order made can be annulled. The fact that notice was not served on the assessee has to be established by considering all relevant facts. The dispatch number on face of notice is a relevant fact. Once the notice has been issued at the correct address by speed post and same has not been received back then it will be deemed to be served. Therefore, CIT (A) is directed to decide the issue after taking all these relevant facts into consideration.
Assessee’s claim that travel website should be treated as software (and hence website development cost is eligible for 60% depreciation) is not justified. By approaching travel website of assessee, customers/people can approach assessee and conduct business; therefore, website as such cannot be treated as software; it would fall under definition of intangible asset on which depreciation @ 25% is allowable.
Section 80P is applicable to regional rural banks. This position is undisputed in the instant case as well. The only question is the exigibility to deduction thereunder of the impugned incomes. The word ‘investment’ occurring in the definition of ‘banking’ in section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act is of importance. Section 6(1)(a) of the said Act provides that apart from the business of banking, a banking company may engage, inter alia, in acquiring, holding, issuing on commission, under-writing, dealing in stock, funds, shares, debentures, debenture stock, bonds, obligations, securities and investments of all kinds.
