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...
Revenue contending that sale took place on 24.02.05 and thereby the investment made u/s. 54EC on 30.08.2005 is beyond the prescribed period of six month. Once the board of directors approve the transfer, then only the process of transfer of shares can be said to be completed in case of a private limited company. The Annual Return filed before the ROC disclosed that the date of registration of transfer was 28th February 2005, confirmed by purchaser. Board resolution approving transfer of shares was passed on 25th February 2005.
It is sine qua non for application of Section 50 C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both, but then a leasehold right in such a capital asset cannot be equated with the capital asset per se. We are, therefore, unable to see any merits in revenue’s contention that even when a leasehold right in land or building or both is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked.
In the instant case, indisputably the society is running a school since 2003 and has been continuously allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Ignoring these aspects, the ld. CIT in the impugned order rejected the request for registration while observing that the society did not place before him or the Addl. CIT, original instrument of its establishment and that it was controlled by family members of Shri Rajinder Singh while cash payments had been made without deduction of TDS.
Explanation below section 9(2), as relied on by the ld DR, requiring inclusion of income in the total income of the non-resident whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business-connection in India or the non-resident has rendered services in India, is applicable only in respect of clauses (v) to (vii). Clause (i) of section 9 has not been included by the legislature within the ambit of this Explanation. It shows that unless a non-resident earns income from business operations carried out in India, such income cannot be deemed as accruing or arising in India. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is crystal clear that the assessee rendered “International services” outside India which required the payment in question. If this is the position, which has not even been disputed by the learned Departmental Representative, then there can be no question of roping such income within the ken of section 9(1)(i).
Issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports V/s CIT (supra) wherein it has been held that not the entire amount received by the assessee on sale of DEPB, but the sale value less the face value of the DEPB will represent profit on transfer of DEPB by the assessee. Respectfully following the above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to recompute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and accordingly the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the above assessment years do not call for any interference.
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports [216 CTR 195] wherein their Lordships observed Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Sec. 68 of I.T. Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their Individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment
The contention that the provisions of section 56(1)(v) regarding the amount received from the relative was not there before Revenue authorities. Moreover it is to be established that the person who gifted money is assessee’s sister as claimed. It was also to be established that the said sister is working as Dentist in U.K. The audit certificate placed before the CIT (A) with reference to the creditworthiness should have been admitted and examined by the CIT (A) which was not done.
There is no dispute to the fact that as per sec. 251(1) of the Act, the ld. C.I.T.(A) has no power to set aside any matter to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh verification and adjudication. Therefore, considering the fact that some additional evidence was admitted by the ld. C.I.T.(A) and he has set aside some issues to the file of ld. A.O. u/s. 251(1) of the Act, which he is not empowered to do, we deem it proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issues to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
In the case of Mukherjee Estate P. Ltd. reported in 244 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that income on account of display of hoardings on the top of the building for advertisement purposes to display the advertisement is not an income from house property as hoardings do not form part of the building which is income from the house property and other parts of the building.
The contention of the learned Sr.AR to the effect that the Revenue moved rectification application in the year 2011 i.e. after around 3 years from the date of passing of the Tribunal order u/s 254(1), belies the Revenue’s stand of such ground having been in fact taken, is without any force. When section 254(2) provides a period of limitation of four years from the date of passing of the order, it implies that any rectification application moved within this statutory period of four years requires consideration. As the instant application u/s.254(2) is well within the stipulated period, in our considered opinion, there is no justification in not accepting it.
