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 : ITAT Special Bench held that omission of scrutiny category in a Section 143(2) notice is a procedural defect curable under Section...
Income Tax : ITAT held section 35D(2)(c) applies only to companies and upheld disallowance of REIT's claim for IPO and listing expense amortisa...
Income Tax : Article examines whether the MLI Principal Purpose Test has domestic effect under Section 90(1) following Nestlé SA and Sky High ...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the appeal after holding that mere upload of an order on the ITBA portal is not valid service under Sectio...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held Section 2(47)(v) inapplicable as the JDA did not satisfy Section 53A conditions, deleting capital gains for AY...
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 : ITAT held Section 153C proceedings invalid as the deemed search date for the other person fell after 01.04.2021 and allowed the ap...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted disallowance supported by debit notes despite ledger narration error and remanded the remaining claim for fresh verif...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted tax on executive search fees and reimbursements, restored management fee issue for fresh examination, and granted DTA...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT deleted section 40(a)(ia) disallowance on CSLA reimbursement and remanded section 37(1) year-end provisions for fresh ...
Income Tax : ITAT allowed BSNL employees full exemption under Sections 10(10B) and 10(10AA), holding delay and Goetze India cannot defeat lawfu...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed rectification under Section 254(2), correcting factual errors and granting Section 54EC deduction of ₹1 crore ...
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...
As is apparent from the aforesaid facts, the AO disallowed the claim of bad debts in the absence of any evidence as to when the amount was offered as income and there was nothing to show as to whether this amount had been actually written off in the books of account. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence in this regard while observing that though the basic information and requisite details regarding bad debts/advances written off
As per order passed by the ITO (TDS), he has issued show cause notice to know the reason why the assessee has not quoted the PAN of the deductee in Form No. 16 and 16A. But the assessee had not given any explanation before the ITO (TDS), even the assessee has also failed to appear before him on the date fixed.
Therefore, it emerges that MAT payable u/s 115JB is only income tax and does not include surcharge or education cess. Therefore, if only income tax is paid under the provisions of section 115JB it is natural that tax credit u/s 115JAA will only be of income tax and not of surcharge and education cess.
Since the assessee only distributed the income in terms of the agreement and this did not amount to incurring of an expenditure nor the assessee claimed any, there was no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
It is settled law that suspicion howsoever strong, it cannot take place of actual evidence and, hence, the contention of the revenue that assessee was in possession of cash throughout the period of six assessment years has to be rejected.
Issues involved in this appeal of the revenue are squarely covered by the recent decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. v. Dy. DIT [2012] 136 ITD 66 wherein it has been held that interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India.
In the present case, the assessee was allotted two flats on two different stories which he claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 54. Admittedly there is no unity of construction between such flats. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one.
Reason behind disallowance of claim made by the assessee was that since the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 10A in the return filed under section 139(1), the proviso to section 10A debarred him from making any such claim in revised return. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the proviso under section 10A.
The consultancy charges had been paid by the assessee in providing technical services regarding the patents, obtaining patent information from innovator companies and obtaining innovator samples for research and development purposes. The payments have been accepted towards research and not towards registering the patents.
Observation of the Assessing Officer that since the land was not cultivated by the assessee himself and was carried on by the brother, therefore, it cannot be treated as agricultural land. We are not absolutely convinced by this argument/observation because there is no requirement in any Act more especially the Income Tax Act that only the self cultivated land will be treated as agricultural land.
