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...
Mitsui & Co India Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT (ITAT Delhi) – Directors of the assessee were entitled to use the vehicles for their personal use in accordance with the terms and conditions on which they were appointed and the perquisites given to the directors formed part of their ‘remuneration’ under the Explanation to section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of determining their remuneration under section 309 of that Act. Once such remuneration was fixed as provided in section 309 it was not possible to state that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the personal use of the directors. Even if there was any personal use by the directors that was as per the terms and conditions of service and, in so far as the assessee was concerned, it was business expenditure and no part of the expenditure could be disallowed.
E2 Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO- Learned CIT(A) has passed a very detailed order in the assessment year 2002-03 and rightly came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. From the assessment order, we find that according to the AO, it is not a new undertaking for the purpose of exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. Factually, it is also correct that the undertaking was already engaged in exporting software before it became a STP unit. The STP was notified in March, 1993 but not in Software Technology Park. In the year 2001, a company was formed by conversion of the firm and it started production in STP unit after getting approval.
Sita Jain & Ors. v. ACIT & Anr. (ITAT Delhi) – We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the subsequent decision has upheld grant of exemption u/s 54B in a case where land was purchased in the joint name. The ITAT had discussed this issue in the case of Smt. Saraswati Swaminathan reported in 116 ITD 234 and has observed that the object of section 54EC is to utilize the sale proceed of long term capital gain in the purchase of specified bonds.
Atos Origin IT Services Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Director of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee who was tax resident of Singapore had entered into a hubbing agreement for providing data processing support to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) a non resident company engaged in the business of banking in India. Assessee receive amount from SCB India for use of disc space alongwith embedded software in the hardware of the assessee at its data centre in Singapore of the infrastructure of the assessee, whether CIT(A) was justified in treating the income earned by the assessee was of the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of DTAA and also within the meaning of clause (iii) of Explanation (2) below Sec.9(vi) of the Income tax Act. Held, No
Industrial Thermoplastics Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether the disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on interest payment by the assessee to a concern covered u/s 40A(2) though the assessee has explained that there is no taxable income of the corporation and the defects in Form 15H are curable and cannot be considered without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
Indusind Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether interest on government securities will become taxable on the date of coupon date as the assessee receives the right of the interest in the said securities only on the said date and it does not become due on day to day basis. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Limited Vs DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Pre-operative expenses and registration fee paid to SEBI are allowable as intangible asset and assessee can claim depreciation on the same and AO cannot question the allowability if same was allowed in the earlier AY.
Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- in regard to 14 bighas, the assessee was found to be a trespasser. The law does not recognize the rights of a trespasser. Ordinarily, it is said that the possession is the nine point of ownership. The possessor has got right over the property and his right cannot be challenged by any one except the true owner. Undoubtedly, for some time, the assessee was the possessor of the land and building. But from the facts culled out from the records, it cannot be concluded that the possessory rights of the assessee bear any legal recognition. Unless such rights are protected by law to associate the word ‘right’ with the said type of possession will be a misnomer, since right is a legally protected interest.
DCIT Vs Mr Sanjeev R Kanwar (ITAT Mumbai) – For making additions, FIR is contemporaneous evidence and the contents of the same cannot be ignored in the light of self-serving documents. Human conduct and human probabilities are to be given weightage over the self generated evidences.
Harish P. Mashruwala v. Asst. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In this case, tax sought to be evaded is very clear as the tax rate applicable is 30% whereas the assessee has paid 20%. The tax sought to be evaded was because of the lower rate of tax paid and not because of any addition to the income and, therefore, provisions of Explanation 1 are not applicable. The penalty is imposable under the main provision and there is no need to refer to any Explanations. As regards the merit of the case, the claim of the assessee that amount paid for receiving the gift was from the cash received on surrender of tenancy right is not supported by any evidence.
