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...
Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC).
Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – Assessee has raised a specific ground that order passed u/s 143(3) was not valid in as much as there is no proof of valid service of notice u/s 143(2) within the limitation period of 12 months, as per proviso to section 143(2). We further find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not properly given a finding on this issue. He has only observed that the grounds and the arguments of the assessee are not very strong. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should pass a speaking order on this issue incorporating his specific finding in this regard. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the same afresh.
ACIT Vs Chetan Durgadas Mehra (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer considered the sale of shares by the assessee to the firm in which he is a Partner as a non genuine transaction. Consequently he re-worked out the P&L account as stated in page 8 of the assessment order and determined the loss from the business at a lesser figure of Rs.52,56,153/- as against Rs.1,95,98,779/- incurred by the assessee in the business of purchase and sale of shares and securities.
ITO vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Kesarwani (ITAT Delhi) – Impugned addition in this regard were made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee has failed to provide the necessary documentary evidence with regard to the transactions. We find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessee without elaborately discussing the subject and without referring to the cogent material in this regard. In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served, if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. Assessee is directed to provide the necessary details to the Assessing Officer in this regard. Accordingly, the issue stands remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer .
Thomas Garbarek Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be leviable where the assessees have been able to establish their bonafide and innocence. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppression of income so as to trigger levy of penalty, unless there is a direct attempt to hide an income from the knowledge of the income tax authorities. In particular relevance to assessees is the observation of the Tribunal that ‘bona fide belief can also be substantiated by circumstantial evidence when possibility of documentary evidence cannot be expected’.
Shri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF) Vs DCIT ITAT Hyderabad Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353).
Ina Raja Memorial Education Trust Vs DIT (Exemptions) – (ITAT Delhi) – In this case, the assessee made an application on 24.2.2011 in Form No. 10G, seeking renewal of exemption u/s 80G of the Act, which has been rejected by the ld. CIT(A) by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish bills/vouchers of expenses and certain other details as stated by him in para 2 of his order. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that proviso to clause (vi) of Section 80(G) sub-section (5) has been omitted by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009.
Bayer Material Science Private Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The non segregation of the trading and indenting activity, inadequacy noticed by the Tribunal of the split-up between the said activities, non furnishing of comparable data by the assessee to validate the application of TNMM to indenting activities, ultimately led the Tribunal in the absence of valid comparable data, to allow the use of comparables controlled transactions for the purposes of benchmarking.
Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, the New India Insurance Co. or other Insurance Company in India, who avails the services of the assessee as a broker in the process of the re-insurance of the risk is left with no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so as to bring the services rendered by the assessee within the ambit of Article 13(4)(c) of the Treaty.
ITO Vs Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – After hearing both the parties, we find that the issue is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of Mumbai “C” Bench of the Tribunal in ITA no.5538/Mum./2009, for assessment year 2006- 07, in ACIT v/s M/s. Omniscient Securities P. Ltd., order dated 16thMarch 2011, wherein the Tribunal, vide Para-10, dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue, which reads as follows:-
