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...
M/s J.K. Aluminium Co vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of aluminum wire rods at IGP, SIDCO, Phase-II Samba, Jammu & Kashmir. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed computation of taxable income wherein deduction u/s 80IB amounting to Rs 5,85,84,089/- was claimed. The A.O went through the details and found that the assessee had received excise duty refund of Rs 5,68,41,800/- during the financial year. The A.O by applying ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 225 CTR 233 and the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. ITO in ITA No.255/Asr/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 did not accept the assessee’ s claim for relief u/s 80IB of the Act in relation thereto. When this was proposed to the assessee, the assessee furnished a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 317 ITR 353 wherein this issue has been claimed to have been decided in its favour. The A.O, however, taking support from the decision of the Supreme Court, went on to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of this excise duty refund. On Appeal Honorable ITAT Allow the claim of the Assessee relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd.
Susi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT – Business losses carried forward beyond a period of eight years could be deducted in computing the book profit and hence the limitation of eight years for carry forward and set off of business losses under the normal tax provisions is not applicable while computing book profit under section 115JA of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Sapient Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – When loss making companies have been taken out from the list of comparables by the TPO, Zenith Infotech Ltd. which showed super profits should also be excluded. The fact that assessee has himself included in the list of comparables, initially cannot act of estoppel particularly in light of the fact that the AO had only chosen the companies which are showing profits and had rejected the other companies which showed loss (Quark System vs. DCIT 38 SOT 307 (SB) followed).
ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd (ITAT Delhi – Special Bench)- Under Article 11(4) of the DTAA, interest from indebtedness “effectively connected” with a PE of the recipient is taxable under Article 7 and not under Article 11. Though the interest was connected with the PE in the sense that it has arisen on account of TDS from the receipts of the PE, it was not “effectively connected” with the PE either on the basis of asset-test or activity-test. The payment of tax was the responsibility of the foreign company and the fact that it was discharged by way of TDS did not establish effective connection of the indebtedness with the PE. In order to be “effectively connected”, it is not necessary that the interest income has to be necessarily business income in nature. Even interest assessable under “other sources” can qualify.
ITO vs. Hemandas J. Pariyani The issue is whether the amount received by the society and its member on account of transferable development rights is taxable under capital gains. The issue in dispute is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Jethalal v DCIT wherein it was held that transferable development rights granted by the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, qualifying for equivalent floor space index having no cost of acquisition, sale thereof does not give rise to taxable capital gains. Since the facts of the case under consideration is identical to that of the decision of the ITAT in the said case, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO not to charge capital gains tax on the compensation received by the assessee even on a protective basis. Amount received by the society and its member on account of transferable development rights is not taxable under capital gains.
S. 194C defines work to include carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways while s. 194-I defines rent to mean payment for use of plan (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for carriage of passengers for which the assessee paid a fixed amount. Therefore, the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not rent for s. 194-I.
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Tiruchirapalli (ITAT Chennai) -Where the AO has considered all the points, on the basis of which the CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263, following the decision of the ITAT and High Court in the case of the assessee itself, proceedings initiated u/s 263 are not valid as it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Recently ITAT Mumbai held that in the case of Chiranjeev Lal Khanna v. ITO held that considering the facts of the case and clauses in the agreement, the taxpayer has transferred land and building to the developer would be chargeable to tax as capital gains. Accordingly, Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 196 1(the Act) would be applicable.
DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd. The taxpayer was a housing finance company. The taxpayer had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act (ITA) in respect of securitization income earned from the business of long term housing finance. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction to the taxpayer on the basis that the taxpayer had received the proceeds on loan securitization and not the interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the taxpayer. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the AO preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
The taxpayer was engaged in share trading. During the assessment year 2004-05, the taxpayer had set off the indexed long term capital loss against non-indexed long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer did not allow the set off of indexed long term capital loss against non-indexed long term capital gains. Vipul A. Shah v. ACIT (ITA No 3190/Mum/2010) Mumbai ITAT dated 8 April 2011
