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...
Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi I.T.A. No. 3238/Del/2009 A.Y. : 2004- 05 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.3.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- “On the facts and […]
Navine Fluorine International Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of fluorine and other refrigerant gases. During the survey operation under section 133A it was noticed that the assessee had received payments on account of sale of scrap. The assessee company had not collected tax (TCS) at the time of receipt […]
JCIT Vs M/s Videocon Industries (ITAT Mumbai) – It is seen on perusal of the assessment records of assessment year 1999-2000 that the loss on sale of shares on SMS Pharmaceuticals has been declared as long term capital loss. This shows that the transaction in respect of the purchase and sale of shares of SMS Pharmaceuticals are nothing but transfer of capital asset and not part of the business of the assessee company. This fact is evident from the assessment records of previous assessment years wherein the shares have been shown as investments. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee company that the said loss of Rs.95,00,000/- should be allowed as a business loss and thereby writing it off as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowable as the conditions laid down by section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied by the assessee company .
DCIT Vs M/s Toyoto Boshoku Automotive (I) Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)- By virtue of Board Circular No.261 dt.8.8.79 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank in 238 ITR 889, we find that it is a settled law that the date of presentation of the cheque should be treated as the date of payment of tax, inspite of the fact that some time was required for realization of the cheque. In the result, the appealfiled by the assessee is allowed’.8.1 In the instant case, admittedly, the cheques were presented and deposited before the authorized banker within the due date of payment of advance tax.
This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from an assessment order passed u/s. 158BC/143(3) r.w.s.254 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.12.2008 and the grounds which have been argued before us are as follows:-
ACIT Vs. Parablic Drugs Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – It has to be held that all of these expenditure were incurred by the assessee in the course of its business and none of the expenditure can be classified as expenditure in the nature of capital. The case law relied upon by the ld. AR supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, we found no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the assessee has been held eligible for deduction of these expenditure under both the sections either u/s 35(1)(i) or u/s 37(1) of the Act.
ACIT Vs M/s P P Overseas (ITAT Mumbai) – Statutory liabilities such as customs duty, DEPB licence etc. which is actually the liability of the assessee and the receipt for the payment is issued by the concerned authority only in the name of the assessee. The C & F agents merely collected the payments from the assessee for payment to the concerned authorities. Such payments cannot be considered to be covered by section 194C as they are not for any work of the nature mentioned in Explanation III.
Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) -Whether CIT(A) has erred in confirming the dis-allowance of Rs. 7,93,34,193/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has filed Form No. 15J with CIT on 26.02.2009 instead of on or before 30th June, 2006 in as much the there is no failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C since the assessee has received Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors before making payment to them. Held , No The decision on deductibility of tax on payment made to sub-contractor is to be taken at time when contractor is releasing payments to sub-contractors and it is at that point of time second proviso to section 194C(3)(i) would come into play and when Form No. 15-I are submitted by sub-contractors to contractor, then contractor is not required to deduct tax from such payments, whereas compliance of third proviso can be deferred till 30th June of next financial year.
These cross appeals are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively. The appeals arise out of the assessments made under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As they involve some common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
P A Chacko Muthalaly Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- If the approvals of the technical services have not been granted, obviously then assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80RRA. The Tribunal cannot go beyond its scope to hold that CBDT was not correct in refusing the permission for which assessee could have taken appropriate steps before the Honourable High Court. In the light of this discussion we are of the view that assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80 RRA.
