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. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Definition given in Explanation to sec. 42, section 293A as well as in various clauses of Production Sharing Contract it does not require to undergo any process of any physical or composition change but after the process of separation of gas, water and other sedimentary elements become commercial commodity. Therefore, commercial production of mineral oil as per sec. 80IB (9) involves the activity of extracting oil from underneath of surface and transport it for sale and nothing else.
AIA Engineering Ltd Vs. Add CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It was held that investment made by AIA Engineering Limited (AIA India or the assessee) in Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE (Vega UAE) shall not be treated as investment in a proprietary concern of AIA India though Vega UAE had no other shareholder.Vega UAE is considered to be established as an independent corporate entity with separate financial liability from those of its owner in accordance with the memorandum of incorporation and the only situation where the owner will be treated as personally responsible is regarding the omission of some specified information.
ACIT Vs. Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that the sharing of net revenues (i.e., amounts billed to customers less third party costs) in a 5o:5o ratio between the origin and destination companies in a consistent manner in controlled as well as uncontrolled transactions, constitutes a comparable uncontrolled price (CUP). In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the 5o:5o model is a common industry practice.
DDIT Vs. Western Union Financial Services Inc (ITAT Delhi)- ITAT held that the taxpayer’s agents in India were independent agents under Article 5(5) of the India-USA tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, there was no Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the taxpayer in India. Further, the Tribunal observed that the taxpayer did not have right to enter and make use of the premises of the agents for its business. Accordingly, it was concluded that there was no fixed place PE of the taxpayer in India as per Article 5(1) of the tax treaty.
Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. V/s ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The undisputed fact is that there are no fresh loans or investments during the year. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) laid down that when the Revenue cannot point out as to how interest on borrowed funds was attributable to the earning of dividend income which was exempt under section 10(33) of the Act (as it then stood)’ no disallowance can be made.
NRB Bearings Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -The Tax Payer was conducting manufacturing activities at four different locations across India. It had installed additional machinery to increase capacity at one of the locations i.e. the Aurangabad unit. The assessee claimed additional depreciation on the new machinery as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act which permits the assessee to additional depreciation on installation of new machinery. The same was allowed by the Tax Officers (TO) as well.
First of all, we will consider the second part of the submission i.e. since the person to whom the payment was made has already offered the same for taxation, hence provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. This is not correct. Because the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] was rendered under the provisions of sec.201. Secondly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para-10 has clearly mentioned that in view of Circular No.275/201/95-IT(Clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) dated 29-1-1997 no demand u/s.201[1] could be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee.
DCIT Vs. Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is under the Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India. Assessee’s business is in ship building, ship repairing and general engineering. The ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 2 crores, which was stated as received from Government for upkeep of plant & machinery. The ld. A.O. was of the view that this is the revenue expenditure and the amount was received, as per the ld. A.O., on revenue account. He, therefore, treated it as income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.
Shri Pradeep Kumr O Bhala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – The submission is considered and the decisions are perused. There is no denying fact that, the gift has come through banking channel, the donor has filed return showing taxable income, however, the fact that has not been denied by the appellant is that, he is not aware of anything about the donor. Neither the donor is available at the address given nor has he been produced for examination. The appellant is not even aware of the activities of the donor and his age. The donor is not related to the appellant. Owning of Pan and filing of return is not a conclusive proof that, the gift is genuine. Payment through banking channel cannot be a conclusive proof of the genuineness of the gift.
ITO Vs. United Estate P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] that for making an addition under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB two conditions must be satisfied jointly. (1)(a) There must be a debit of the amount to the profit & loss account, (clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) the amount so debited must be carried to the reserve. Further, the reserve contemplated by clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB is required to be carried through the profit & loss account.
