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...
Shantaben Karshanbhai Patel v Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) – Merely because the AO passed the order u/s 154 of the IT Act would not make it appealable before the learned CIT(A) u/s 246A of the IT Act. The claim of interest simpliciter is not appeallable order before the learned CIT(A) as per section 246A of the IT Act. The crux of the matter shall have be seen in entirety and quoting wrong provisions of law would make it appeallable order before the learned CIT(A). The provisions of section 244A (2) are specific and on such a matter on issue the point shall have to be decided by the CCIT or CIT whose decision thereof shall be final. Accordingly, we are of the view that appeal of the assessee is not maintainable in the present form. The same is dismissed. However, the assessee is at liberty to agitate the issue before the concerned CCIT/CIT in accordance with law. The learned CCIT or CIT concerned shall decide the issue on such agitation by the assessee in accordance with law.
Assessee company in the present case is a fully owned subsidiary of Yahoo Inc, USA, which is engaged in the business of providing consumer services such as search engine, content and information on wide spectrum of topics, e-mail, chat, etc. It filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 30.10.2004 declaring total income of Nil after adjusting the brought forward losses to the extent of 3,91,47,123/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has made a payment of 34,86,947/- to Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. being cost of services/research material/advertisement media.
Recently, ITAT Mumbai (the Tribunal) in case of ACIT v. ACM Shipping India Ltd (2011) ITA No. 5085/MUM/2009 held that the commission received by the UK company for assisting the taxpayer in arranging cargo transportation was taxable as business income by virtue of their business connection in India. The Tribunal observed that reliance cannot be placed on Circular No. 23 dated 23 July 1969 since it has been withdrawn. The circular was issued in the context of sale of goods and may not apply to the current case since it relates to rendering of services.
M/s Prajna Technologies & Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) – Observing the nature of business, the taxpayer never sold the right to carry on the business of its software development or its right to carry on any business. It had merely sold a specific sale contract with a client, which is routine outsourcing in all businesses. The provision of Section 55(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be applicable in the present case and accordingly the transaction would fall under the ambit of the expression “right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing”. The said expression was inserted by the Finance Act 1997 w.e.f. 1 April 1998. Hence, the contention of the taxpayer that the amendment to Section 55(2)(a) bringing the transfer of commercial right to capital gain tax is effective from the AY 2003-04 and not 2002-03 is not tenable. Hence the transfer of a specific sale contract is taxable as capital gains under Section 55(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Dalal Broacha Stock Broking Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai – Special Bench)- Provisions of section 36(1)(ii) will apply in case of all employees including share holder employees irrespective of the fact whether any extra services have been rendered or not. The issue whether payment of bonus or commission to an employee will be covered by the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) is also settled by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Subodh Chandra Poppatlal vs. CIT (24 ITR 586) in which the Hon’ble High Court while dealing with similar provisions of the old Act held that when an expenditure fell under section 10(2)(x) [which corresponds to section 36(1)(ii)], in the sense that it is an expenditure in the nature of bonus or commission paid to an employee for services rendered then its validity can only be determined by the tests laid down in section 10(2)(x) and not by the tests laid down in section 10(2)(xv) which corresponds to section 37(1).
ACIT, Gandhinagar Vs Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd (ITAT Ahemdabad) – Only such items which are specifically mentioned in the Explanation to section 115JB need to be excluded or included, as the case be, and nothing more can be brought in. All the three items listed above do not feature in the Explanation. Otherwise, the disallowance u/s.14A would be material in computation of the normal process of income while the second item interest on investment in bonds stands already included in the book profit. As far as the prior period expenses are concerned, there is no such mention in the explanation. The assessment order on the other hand is silent as to under which category it is being included for the matter to be further analysed. Therefore, as the matter stands, none of the three items can be added for computation of book profit.
LIC Housing Finance Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)-The provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notif ied with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The AO must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.
Siel Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/- being amount claimed by the assessee u/s 43B of the IT Act. The assessee was asked to establish the facts from the records and from the bank accounts, but the same was never produced. Assessee contended before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that certificate of CA is sufficient for allowing such deduction. When the factual evidence was again called for, it was stated that the details were related to 10 years old bank record and the same is not readily available. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has failed to establish the evidence of such payments before the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and also before him. hence, he sustained the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/-.
Raytheon Company v Dy CIT (ITAT Delhi) – In a turnkey contract, in which the assessee was under an obligation to supply the equipment and software as well as install them, the profit should be taxed on the completion of each milestone or at the time of handing over the functioning system to the contracting party. The supply of the equipment and software constituted a milestone in the contract and the income therefrom arose in the year of shipment, which was in a previous year.
Sami Labs Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) – Assessee had to incur cultivation expenses to ensure adequate and steady supply of coleus plants from the farmers which were an essential input for the continuous processing in research and development activities of the assessee. Thus, these expenses incurred by the assessee for a commercial expediency and were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. In essence, the authorities were not justified in disallowing the cultivation expenses of Rs.90.64 lakhs claimed by the assessee.
