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...
Shramjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KEC Interntional Ltd v/s. B.R. Balakrishnan (Supra) has been pleased to hold that generally coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the Statute to go in appeal. In the present case, it remained the allegation of the appellant that recovery action was taken by the A.O by attaching bank account of the appellant u/s. 226(3) on 29.3.2010 on the basis of first appellate order passed on 3rd Februry 2010 and was served upon the assessee on 31st March 2010.
ITO vs. Laxmi Jewel Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before appellate Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monitory limit of 3,00,000/-. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (supra) held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal.
The only issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds:
Laxmi Civil Engineering Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) – After Section 80 IA was amended by the Finance Act, 2001, the section applies to an enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing; or (ii) operating and maintaining; or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfills certain conditions. Those conditions are (1) ownership of the enterprises by a company registered in India or by a consortiums; (II) an agreement with the central or State Government, local authority or statutory body; and (iii) The Start of operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995. The requirement that operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995 has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision under which deduction is available to an assessee who develops or operates and maintains, or develops, operates and maintains an infrastructure facility.
ITO V. M/s Elka Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd. ( ITAT Delhi) – The issue is whether the promotional expenses incurred by a company engaged in business of cosmetics on ‘Testers’, and ‘merchant display’ which were supplied free of cost to the retailers are capital in nature merely because it also promotes goodwill of the company. It was held that nature of expenditure incurred in the assessee’s line of business is absolutely essential for the day to day conduct of the business of the assessee-company and the same is allowable as revenue expenditure.
In a recent ruling, in the case of LG Asian Plus Ltd. Vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax the Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that income earned by a Foreign Institutional Investor from derivative trading would be taxable as `capital gains’ in view of special provisions under section 115AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also held that under the Act, income could be treated as ‘speculative’ only if it was taxable as ‘business income’. The Tribunal accordingly ruled that FII income would not be treated as ‘speculative business income’. While ruling in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal held that loss incurred from derivative transactions would not be treated as ‘speculation loss’ but would be treated as capital loss, and hence, it could be adjusted against capital gains earned by the assessee.
A relation between the business of a non-resident and activity carried on in India would result in a ‘business connection’ for the purpose of deemed accrual of income in India as well as for considering the resident as the agent of the non-resident
The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Tianjin Tianshi India Private Limited v. ITO, held that existence of actual cross border transaction and motive to shift profits outside India or evade taxes in India are not necessary pre conditions for Transfer Pricing (TP) provisions to apply.
Hyderabad Distilleries And Wineries Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- Whether selling and publicity expenses can be disallowed merely on the basis of statement of an auditor – Whether when the similar expenses were allowed by the AO to similar parties, no dis-allowance can be made only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions – Whether the dis-allowance made without giving the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the parties on the basis of whose statement the dis-allowance was made, is against the natural justice.
Gajendra Kumar T Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Assessee was eligible for setting of losses of business of dealing in derivatives, incurred in the assessment years prior to the assessment year 2006-07, against the profits of the same business in assessment year 2006-07.
