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...
ITO Vs. Kuber Chand Sharma, In our considered view, CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence without fulfilling the categorical conditions laid down in Rule 46A, as explained by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd.(supra). Consequently, his order on this issue is not tenable, however, the issue of merits remains. Besides, from the record it emerges that the assessee wanted to file only government records and revenue record about crops. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, the interest of justice will be served if the matter is set aside, restored back to the file of AO to decide the same afresh after affording the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard.
Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – It is not in dispute that assessee company is under liquidation and official liquidator stands already appointed by the order of the Hon’ble Court. As per Companies Act, 1956, no doubt, powers of liquidator which includes the power to defend legal proceedings, civil or criminal are to be in the name and on behalf of the company. Section 178 of the I.T. Act, 1961 recognizes the official liquidator as the concerned person in the case company is under liquidation. Similarly section 2 (7) defines the word assessee. It includes such persons also as assessee who are deemed to be an assessee under any provision of this Act.
Kama Holding Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Rule 8D has been held to be retrospective in nature and the dis allowance has been worked out by applying Rule 8D. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in subsequent judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Another (2010) 234 CTR (Bom) 1 has held Rule 8D to be prospective in nature. Thus, Rule 8D would not be applicable to the assessment year in question i.e. 2007-08. The Hon’ble High Court, however, has directed that indirect expenses which may be attributable on a reasonably proper basis can only be disallowed.
DDIT Vs. Solid Works Corporation (ITAT Mumbai) – The ruling of the AAR in the case of Dassault (supra) was approved by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Ericsson AB,New Delhi (supra). It can therefore be said that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that consideration paid merely for right to use cannot be held to be royalty. This ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court would also apply when shrink wrap software is sold.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently pronounced its ruling in the case of SSL-TTK Ltd. (Appeal no. ITA No. 544/Mds/2011), wherein the Tribunal ruled that a notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer [“TPO”] under section 92CA (3) of the Act cannot be considered as a notice issued under Section 92D (3) and hence non-compliance of the taxpayer would not attract levy of penalty under Section 271 G1 of the Act. Further, the taxpayer had made substantial compliance of filing the information as required by the letter issued by the TPO and the arm’s length price was accepted by the TPO.
Fees paid to regularise violation in construction of a building pursuant to state government ordinance forms part of construction cost and depreciation is allowable on such cost under Section 32 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further the Tribunal held that the restriction provided under Section 37 of the Act on deduction of penal expenditure is not applicable to depreciation claim covered under Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal has also held that the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 (Kar) relied by the tax department is also not applicable to the facts of the case.
Prakash Securities Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Asst. Comm. of Income Tax The dispute is regarding disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the IT Act. Under the provisions of Section 14(2) and 14(3), expenses relating to exempt income are required to be computed as per method prescribed by the Government. The Government has since notified the method in the form of Rule 8D w.e.f. 1.4.2008.
Section 149 of the 1961 Act, which provides the period limitation, categorically provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued after the period prescribed has lapsed. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed to reassess.
ACIT vs. Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (ITAT Mumbai) – The issue raised by the Assessee is that while computing capital gain cost of improvement should also be capable of being determined. The dispute in the case decided by Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D.Mehtha (supra) and Maheshwar Prasad-2 CHS Ltd. (supra) was while computing capital gain cost of acquisition of the capital asset was not capable of determination.
The sum in question was not paid for transfer of any intangible right in respect of manufacture, production or process of cement. The provisions relating to capital gains are therefore not attracted. The amount was paid for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ and would fall within the ambit of Sec.28(va)(a) of the Act. The payment in question clearly falls under the category of a payment for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ which at the relevant point of time of accrual in the hands of B.V.Raju, viz., 27.10.1999, was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
