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 Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Secti...
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 : 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...
Cosmic Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- The only ground taken in this appeal, filed by the assessee, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 2,70,744/- in respect of pre-operative expenses allocated to fixed assets. It is also mentioned that he erred in holding that the expenses were revenue in nature and not linked with installation of various assets.
Sanjay Gala Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- In the present case, the assessee subscribed to shares in convertible foreign exchange and acquired the foreign exchange asset. In so far as this aspect is concerned, there is no dispute from the revenue authorities.
ADIT Vs Star Cruise India Travel Services (ITAT Mumbai)- In the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India” but then since no part of the operations was carried out in India, no part of assessee’s income could have been thus taxable in India.
ITO Vs Audyogik Tantra Shikshan (ITAT Pune)- The assessee in its Cross Objection, has objected the penalty levied by the A.O with this contention that the A.O has not recorded his satisfaction against the alleged default of filing inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated under the statute in the A.Y. 2004- 05 and has failed to initiate the penalty proceeding during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee also prayed for awarding the cost u/s. 254(2B) of the Act to the assessee.
The assessee was given refund while processing the return u/s. 143(1) and further refund was given after assessment u/s. 143(3). In reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, the refund given earlier became collectible from the assessee. The Assessing officer levied interest u/s. 234D on such excess refund amount. The learned CIT(A) held that the interest u/s. 234D is not chargeable in the hands of the company in reassessment proceedings.
Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- Tonnage income from the business of operating qualifying ships — Receipts emanating from the activities, which do not have a direct and necessary nexus with the shipping/ dredging activities of the assessee-company, cannot be exempted under the tonnage tax scheme.
DCIT Vs Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Limited (ITAT Hyderabad)- Risk adjustment disallowed, impact of intangibles on pricing negated, taxpayer estopped from subsequently pointing facts having material bearing, application of export earnings filter approved, etc.
L&T Transportation Infrastructure Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)- Roadside amenities cannot be treated as ‘infrastructure facility’ for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
IBM India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Considering the second objection of the AO, namely, that separate books of account have not been maintained for the STP Units, his observation was that the objection of the AO arose on the premise that part of the expenditure which could be related to the exempted income which is not allowable to the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in section 14A of the Act which could be disguised and allowed to be set off against taxable income and, thus, the assessee would be benefited by paying reduced tax which could have been avoided.
DCIT v. Cabot India Ltd. – At the outset the Tribunal stated that the issue to be adjudicated upon is whether or not the royalty rate of five percent is arm’s length, and not whether the increase vis-à-vis two percent is justifiable. The Tribunal ruled that the royalty of two percent paid by the assessee to its AE in the previous year was a ‘controlled’ transaction and hence, could not be taken as a benchmark for determining the arm’s length nature of the five percent royalty charge in the current year.
