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 Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that validity of reopening under Section 148 must be tested on the basis of material available when reassessment...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without ...
Income Tax : Hyderabad ITAT held that a notice issued under Section 148 after six years from the end of AY 2015-16 was invalid. The Tribunal ru...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer is invalid even if legal heirs participated in proc...
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...
In Topman Exports vs. ITO 318 ITR 87 (Mum)(SB)(AT) the Special Bench held that for purposes of s. 80HHC only the “profit” on sale of DEPB entitlements (i.e. the sale value less the face value) was required to be considered. In an appeal by the department, this judgement has been reversed by the Bombay High Court today, 29th June 2010.
The assessee, an Australian company, set up a permanent establishment (PE) in India to render technical services for evaluation of coal deposits and conducting feasibility studies for transportation of iron ore. The AO accepted that the income was business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA
Following HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409 (SC), the Tribunal took the view vide order dated 17.3.2009 that provision for bad debts debited to the P&L A/c could not be added to the “book profits” u/s 115JA. To supercede HCL Comnet, clause (g) was inserted in the Explanation to s. 115JA by the F. A. 2009 w.r.e.f 1.4.1998. The amendment received the assent of the President on 19.8.2009, after the order of the Tribunal was passed. The department filed a MA contending that in view of the said retrospective amendment, there was a “mistake apparent from the record”. HELD dismissing the application:
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for asst. year 2006- 07 declaring the income under the head Capital Gains at Rs. 28,767,565/-, which are related to the gains obtained on sale of three immovable properties.
There is no such material referred to by the A.O. for making this addition and this addition was made by him on the basis of difference of alleged market price of the plot purchased by the assessee in January 1997 which was duly disclosed before the income tax department and no incriminating material is alleged to have been found in the course of search indicating that any extra payment in cash was made by the assessee on account of purchase of this plot. In the absence of any such material found in the course of search, no addition can be made in the course of block assessment on the basis of estimating of market price.
The assessee is entitled to deduction on account of R&D expenditure but the same has to be restricted in proportion to the turnover between the agricultural division and the commercial division, and the amount relatable to commercial division can alone be allowed as business expenditure
The assessee, a Mauritian tax resident, owned a jack-up rig used for drilling of mineral oil. The rig was given on charter basis to an Indian company which in turn leased it to ONGC for operations in Indian territorial waters. On 24.4.1997, the assessee entered into an agreement with Foramer SA, France, to sell the jack-up rig. On 15.9.1997,
The only issue arising in the appeal was whether while computing the income from capital gains, the fair market value of the property on the date of sale could be adopted as against the sale consideration received by the assessee. In the facts of the instant case, the assessee had sold the property for a total consideration of Rs. 15.25 lakhs. The said value of consideration was accepted by the registering authorities and was not disturbed. The provisions of section 50C were neither applicable nor applied by the Assessing Officer.
In a recent ruling Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Minichem Ltd. (ITAT) [[2010] 5 taxmann 57 (Mum.-ITAT)] on the issue of taxability of payments made by the Taxpayer for services rendered outside India, under the provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) as well as the India-China Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty) held that such payments are taxable in India both under the ITL as well as the Tax Treaty and the Taxpayer is liable to withhold taxes (WHT) from such payments.
under the India UK Tax Treaty (UK Treaty) reaffirmed some general principles relating to PE, the Tribunal further ruled that the Taxpayer does not have a PE under the basic rule or the agency rule. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to determine if any part of the consideration could be taxed as royalty for use of equipment by the customer.
