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. JMD Global (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- Before the ld CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that all the allottees were in Calcutta and as the notice u/s 133(6) were sent towards the fag end of the time barring period, the same could not be replied by those parties before the assessment order was passed.
Rajesh Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It is found that there were discrepancies in the book result filed, traced on the scrutiny of the books made by the Assessing Officer which could not be properly replied/ explained. So, action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the book result and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) in view of the facts and circumstances is found to be justified and proper which action is upheld.
M/s. Kenton Leisure Services, P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Cochin) – It was held that lease rental income arising from agreements for letting on lease hostel premises along with provision and maintenance of various facilities and amenities would be taxable under the head ‘Income from Business’ as against ‘Income from House Property’.The characterisation of lease rental income as ‘Income from Business’ comes as a relief to taxpayers who lease out property along with provision of facilities / amenities. However, this issue is fact specific and it would be important for taxpayers to bear the above principles in mind while determining the taxability of such revenue streams.
ADIT Vs. Ballast Nadam Dredging (ITAT Mumbai)- It was held that retention money withheld by the contractee pending completion of contract work does not accrue to the assessee/contractor in the year in which the amount is retained. We also observe that similar issue was also considered by ITAT in the case of Spirax Marshall Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that receipt of retention money against furnishing bank guarantee cannot partake character of income since it cannot be apportioned until guarantee period was over. The retention money may be received by the assessee; it cannot be apportioned until expiry of warranty period. We observe that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yatindra and Co. (supra) held that an amount received by assessee against bank guarantee was not accrued to the assessee during the year as no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage vested.
JDIT Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- The stand taken by the appellant in its return of income has been upheld by the ld. High Court. Since, the quantum additions in both the assessment years under appeal has already been deleted by the ld. ITAT, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) for either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Ys. 2003- 04 & 2004- 05. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the entire addition has been deleted the order of the CIT(A) holding that the penalty order does not survive cannot be faulted with.
ITO Vs. Berger Imp ex India (ITAT Delhi)- CIT (A) after considering all these submissions has observed that the assessee had started efforts and other activities for its trade though there is no purchase and sale during the initial period. The assessee had given employment to seven persons for marketing activities and has set up infrastructure for running the business at Chennai. The shop rent, electricity bill and telephone bills have been paid and on these facts it cannot be denied that the assessee had commenced the business. In the trade activity there is no preoperative period as the same is required in manufacturing activity and, thus, he has held that the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of business loss and depreciation and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the loss claimed by the assessee.
ACIT Vs. M/s Sikka Papers Mills Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- In this case the identity of the share holders has not been established in order to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, Assessing Officer issued commission u/s. 131(d) to the departmental officers in Lucknow and Agra as well as and asked for information 133(6) of the Act directly from the share applicants. The letters issued by registered post to the aforesaid share applicant companies u/s. 133(6) remained unserved while the departmental officers found that no such companies existed at the given address.
PTC India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.9.2011 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was placed before the Bench. The date of hearing was intimated to the assessee on the date appeal was filed. Signatures of the person filing the appeal in the Registry are available on record as such the appeal was passed over twice.
The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the fact that there is no bar to purchase agricultural land on which house was to be constructed. The fact is that subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 54F, where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a HUF, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereinafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed,
ACIT Vs. Mrs. Rajpal Sethi (ITAT Mumbai) – AO in the case of assessee while making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 has accepted the short term capital gain and the long term capital gain on sale of shares vide order dated 22.12.2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee’s case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Satpal Singh Sethi (supra). This being so and in the absence of any distinguishing features or contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforementioned cases, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the AO to accept the appellant’s claim of short term capital gain and long term capital gain on share transactions, where the delivery has been taken or given and Security Transaction Tax has been paid.
