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 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 : ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for de...
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...
Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Intelsat Corporation (ITA No. 5443/D/2010) (Judgment Date: 4 March 2011, Assessment Year: 2007-08) held that income received by the non-resident taxpayer from leasing of transponder capacity and bandwidth cannot be taxed as ‘royalty’ under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Bharat Bijlee Limited v. ACIT (ITA NO. 6410/MUM/2008) (Judgment Date: 11 March 2011, Assessment Year: 2005-06) , held that where a business undertaking is transferred against issue of bonds / shares, the transaction is not a “Slump Sale” as defined under Section 2(42C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and therefore provisions of section 50B of the Act relating to computation of capital gains in case of Slump Sale are not applicable to such transfer.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ITO v. TCFC Finance Limited (ITA No.1299/Mum/2009) (Judgement date- 9 March 2011 Assessment Year 2004-05) held that the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) deals with amount of provision for diminution in the value of any asset and not with the value of asset which remains after diminution. Once provision is made for diminution in the value of any asset, the same has to be added for computing book profit, regardless of the fact whether or not any balance value of the asset remains after diminution.
In the case of Synergies Casting Ltd. v. DCIT it was held that exemption under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is not available to an undertaking taken over on lease. Further, the Tribunal held that in order to get the benefit of Section 10B of the Act, for the unexpired period, the taxpayer must prove that it is a successor to the predecessor company. Since the taxpayer was only a lessee it was not a successor to the lessor.
As per clause (a) of Rule 49, an ‘authorized income-tax practitioner’ is any authorized representative as defined in clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 288 for appearing before this Tribunal.
In the present case, we are of the opinion that even if the websites had materialized, the expenditure could not have been viewed as capital expenditure because the website is put up for the purposes of day-to-day running of the business and even if one were to view that some enduring benefit is obtained by the assessee, the benefit cannot be said to accrue to the assessee in the capital field. A website is something where full information about the assessee’s business is given and it helps the assessee’s customers in dealing with it. A website constantly needs updating, otherwise it may become obsolete. It helps in the smooth and efficient running of the day-to-day business. The expenditure would have been allowable as revenue expenditure; as a corollary, when the website did not materialize, the amounts advanced to the companies who were engaged to develop the websites, when they became irrecoverable, can be written off and claimed as loss incidental to the business. The loss is thus allowable as business loss in terms of section 28 of the Act. We accordingly uphold the assessee’s alternative plea.
Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows credit for Federal & State taxes, the DTAA allows credit only for Federal taxes. The result is that the Section 91 is more beneficial to the assessee & by virtue of Section 90(2) it must prevail over the DTAA. Though Section 91 applies only to a case where there is no DTAA, a literal interpretation will result in a situation where an assessee will be worse off as a result of the provisions of the DTAA which is not permissible under the Act. Section 91 must consequently be treated as general in application and must prevail where the DTAA is not more beneficial to the assessee. Accordingly, even an assessee covered by the scope of the DTAA will be eligible for credit of State taxes u/s 91 despite the DTAA not providing for the same.
Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani Vs. ACIT – Article 26(2) means that taxation of a PE of a USA resident shall not be less favorable than the taxation of a resident enterprise carrying on the same activities. The result is that the exemptions and deductions available to Indian enterprises would also be granted to the US enterprises if they are carrying on the same activities. As the assessee was carrying on the “same activities” of export of software as done by residents, it was entitled to s. 80HHE deduction as admissible to a resident assessee.
Explore the legal battle: Purvez A. Poonawalla’s settlement with R.K.Bavasa, challenging the will of late Mrs. Mani Cawasa Bamji. Tax implications discussed.
The AO relied on the specific principle mentioned in the circular. However, the circular has no binding force on the income-tax authorities and needs to be used only as guidance. While applying the principles of the circular, the facts need to be considered in each of the case. It is well-settled principle that whether the activity of buying and selling of the shares is in the nature of trade and investment is a mixed question of law and fact. In this case, on perusal of the details of share transactions filed with the return of income, the Tribunal observed that, the taxpayer has treated the entire investment in the shares as an investment only and not as a stock-in-trade.
