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 Tribunal ruled that the word purchase under Section 54 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation. Genuine investment...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a dece...
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 : 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...
Li & Fung (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- ITA No. 5156/Del/2010] Tribunal ruling that the amount of compensation to be received ought to be a reflection of the functions performed, assets deployed and risks assumed by the associated enterprises (‘AE’) whilst discharging the business. On the concept of location savings the Tribunal held […]
Abhiram Seth Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts :- Abhiram Seth (the assessee) was employed in an executive position with M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd., part of PepsiCo Inc.The assessee was granted valuable rights in shares of Pepsi Co Inc. Employees’ Stock Options [ESOP] held with Barry Group of Merrill Lynch [Trust], USA. Such rights […]
ORDER- A N Pahuja: This appeal filed on 15.3.2011 by the Revenue against an order dated 31-01-2011 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)- XX, New Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2005-06, raises the following grounds:-
DCIT Vs. Bihariji Ispat Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- From the record it appears that all the aforesaid transactions were by Account Payee cheques and loan confirmation and also the confirmation for payment of Share Application Money were obtained from the said Ankur Marketing Ltd. with its I.T. File No. and the same were filed with the A.O. For the Share Application Money received by the assessee, shares were allotted immediately after close of the accounting year 2000-01.
ITO, Bharuch Vs The Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It is pertinent to note that in the assessment order, the AO disallowed the entire payment made to the farmers amounting to Rs.2,57,62,253/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of he IT Act. Apart from this, the AO disallowed Rs. 51,47,250/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.51,47,250/- was made twice i.e. once under Section 40A(3) and then invoking section 40(a(ia).
Growth Avenues Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax – Penalty u/s 271D can be levied against a person who takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS. Sine in this case there is no such violation on the part of assessee company the penalty cannot be levied against it. If at all there is any violation of the provisions of Section 269SS, it was on the part of Shri Rakesh Doshi and Viren Shah as is clear from the cross-examination of Shri KKS.
ITO Vs Rajesh Kr Garg (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case the claim of the asse see is that at the time of paying the interest to the 34 persons mentioned in the assessment order, he had before him the appropriate declarations in the prescribed form from the payees stating that no tax was payable by them in respect of their total income and therefore tax need not be deducted from interest under section 194A, and in the light of these declarations he had no option but to make the payment of interest without any tax deduction.
DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s NTPC- SAIL Power Supply Co Ltd – Whether after insertion of proviso to section 36(1)(iii), the interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, is rightly not allowed as deduction and the interest income earned on FDRs made from surplus fund and interest earned on margins and advances made for expansion work is rightly assessed under the head `income from other sources’
Asst. Director of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ranjay Gulati (ITAT Delhi)– Under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following […]
ACIT Vs M/s Skylark Build (ITAT Mumbai)- Approach adopted by the Assessing Officer for assessing the income from TDR independently without deducting the expenses incurred is not justified. The assessee has been following project completion method which is an accepted method of accounting in construction business and also recommended as per accounting standard AS-7 of ICAI. Therefore, in such cases the income from the project has to be computed in the year of completion.
