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...
De Beers UK Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The Tribunal held that the payment for VAS has to be considered partly as royalty under para 3(a) of Article 13 of the tax treaty being the payment for various types of information of commercial nature acquired based on past experience and partly as FTS under para 4(a) of Article 13 of the tax treaty being the payment attributable to the services rendered by the Key Account Manager (KAM) or through workshops, etc. which were ancillary and subsidiary to application or enjoyment of the information or being payment for marketing consultancy services which were ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of brand.
The decision of CIT Vs. America Counting Corporation 123 ITR 513, noted above also supports the view that taxes paid on behalf of the assessee is a perquisite or a benefit, but not income from business. It could not be taxed except under clause (iv) of Section 28 which provided that a benefit or perquisite was liable to be charged to tax.
DCIT v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- The Delhi Tribunal in this case has held that interest for deferment of advance tax is leviable under Section 234C of the Act where there is a shortfall in payment of advance tax while computing ‘book profit’ under the existing MAT provision under Section 115JB of the Act.
. These three pertain to the same assessee. While in one appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the revision order dated 19th October 2007, passed by the learned CIT under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04, the remaining two appeals are cross appeals against CIT(A)’s appellate order in the matter of assessment framed to give effect to learned CIT’s revision order. As these appeals involve somewhat interconnected issues arising out of common set of facts and as these three appeals were heard together, all the three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.
DCIT Vs. M/s. Aditya Music (I) Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad)- Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is a manufacturer and seller of pre-recorded audio cassettes and CDs. In Profit and Loss A/c. for the years under consideration, the assessee-company claimed the expenditure of copyrights used for manufacturing at Rs. 4,49,95,728 for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 6,34,20,231 for A.Y. 2007-08 as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of the above expenditure treating it as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same.
NJP Surya Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)- In this case, it is on record that in earlier years, returns were non est. returns and the interest claimed cannot be considered as allowed to the assessee in the earlier years. This being so, interest waived in the present assessment year cannot be considered as income of the assessee. Reliance placed by the assessee in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Limited vs. ACIT cited supra supports our view on this issue. In view of the above, we allow the ground raised by the assessee.
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee stated that the assessee during the year under consideration took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from one Shri Amit Kr. Jain, a close relative, by account payee demand draft. The assessee furnished copies of P&L Account, Balance Sheet, I. T. Returns, bank statement for FY 2006-07 relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08 along with confirmation from Shri Amit Kr. Jain.
.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) – The ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming that cash assistance is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) himself has allowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier assessment year and he is taking inconsistent view as far as the impugned assessment year is concerned. It is also the grievance of the assessee that the alternative plea that cash assistance is not to be taxed under the head “business” as it represented a capital asset which had no cost.
V.Swaminatha Iyer & Co. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) – On going through the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal placed before us, we find that the assessee is aggrieved on two counts namely disallowance of interest to loan creditors and disallowance of salary paid to lady partners. The issue of interest to loan creditors is specifically reflected only in the statement of facts whereas the issue of salary paid to lady partners is reflected only in the grounds of appeal. We are also constrained to state that the amount of interest agitated by the assessee as interest to loan creditors at Rs. 49,534/- is not confirmed as the correct amount at the time of hearing. As a lot of such missing links are here, we remit back the file to assessing authority for de novo consideration after hearing the assessee. The issues agitated may be re-examined by the assessing authority specially taking into consideration the fact that loan credits are brought down from earlier assessment year on which the assessee has been claiming interest in a consistent manner.
DCIT Vs. The United Western Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) – Section 234D of the Act provides for charging of interest on excess refund granted to the assessee. Section 234D has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.6.2003. Consequently, it is made out by the assessee that the same is applicable only from the assessment year 2004-05 onwards and not in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, no interest under section 234D could be levied for the instant assessment year. The assessment year before us is 1996-97, which is prior to the assessment year 2004-05.
