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 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 Tribunal held that additions cannot stand without a clear link between seized material and the assessee. It ruled that third-p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata remands case on disallowance of subcontractor expenses, stressing need for evidence, due diligence, and verification ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the Indian entity was only a distributor and not a technology or content owner. It rejected the Revenue’s...
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 : Mumbai ITAT held that additions for alleged accommodation entries and commission income cannot be sustained solely on retracted st...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar reduced additions on unexplained cash deposits after considering that the assessee and his wife were senior citi...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar remanded a case involving denial of section 54B exemption where the assessee relied on Girdawari records to prov...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated excel-sheet entries...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that genuine business sales recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely...
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...
THE assessee company was incorporated during the financial year 1997-98. Originally, there was a company jointly promoted by Tatas and IBM , which were known as Tata IBM. During the financial year 1997-98, it was mutually agreed between the two promoters to bifurcate the business activities into separate entities viz. IBM Global Services India Private Limited (the assessee company) and Tata IBM . As per the agreement entered into, various assets of the erstwhile Tat IBM were transferred to the assessee company has paid amounts of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – and Rs. 5.3 Crore on account of transfer of certain employees to the assessee company and on account of transfer of the data base of the domestic business. The assessee company actually paid a sum of Rs. 18.4 crore for the transfer of the employees to the assessee company but claimed an expenditure of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – as the remaining sum of around Rs. 9.01 crore was attributable to STP Unit, income of which was exempt.
The assessee is a partnership firm constituted by the Deed of Partnership dated 22.1.1980 and consisted of two partners, viz., Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Ms. V Sasikala . In terms of the Deed of Partnership, the Assessee carries on the business of all types of printing and publishing of newspapers, magazines, periodicals etc. and such other business or businesses as may be mutually agreed to between the partners. On 30.4.1990, the Assessee purchased a factory shed consisting of ‘ 3650 sq.ft. along with a factory building from Shri K. Viswanathan as per the sale deed dated 30.4.1900. It was the contention of the Counsel that the Assessee had installed a printing press in the factory premises and started its business of printing and publishing the political newspaper titled ‘ Namadu MGR ‘ for circulation among public and various agencies. While completing the original assessments the Assessee ‘ s claim was not fully allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee went in appeal before the C.I.T.(Appeals) and he set aside the same. Since the Assessee failed to produce the contemporaneous primary evidence relating to the issue, he restricted the claim of the Assessee in all these years
Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) (i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a business connection because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income in India when the booking is completed on the subscribers’ computer; (ii) In determining the extent of profits attributable to such business connection, one has to look into the factors like functions performed, assets used and risk undertaken. On facts, as the major part of the work was processed at the host computer in Germany, only 15% of the revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings made in India can be said to have accrued or arisen in India;
In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHE before setting off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the gross total income. Before the Assessing Officer it was contended that section 80HHE is the self-contained section and contains the definition of profits of the business, export turnover, total turnover etc. Section 80AB refers to the nature of income entitled for deduction u/s VIA and include in the gross total income. Section 80HHE does not refer to any income included in the gross total income.
THE Special Bench decided on a substantial question of Law. A bench of the Tribunal decides an issue in favour of the assessee. The Revenue goes in appeal to the High Court, which dismisses the appeal as there was no substantial question of law. Is this decision of the High Court a binding precedent on the Special bench? `Yes’, ruled the Bench.
The Tribunal held that even if the amount received by the assessee on redemption of share appreciation right is held to be not taxable under the head `income from salaries’ this fact, by itself would not take the same outside the ambit of taxable income, since, in such an eventuality, the said amount will be taxable under the head `income from other sources’. Even if it is held that amount in question is received from a person other than the employer of the assessee, and that in order for an income to be taxed under the head `income from salaries it is a condition precedent that the salary, benefit or the consideration must flow from employer to the employee, the amount received by the assessee on redemption of stock appreciation rights will still be taxable – though under the head `Income from other sources’. The plea raised by the assessee that the amount in question cannot be taxed as `income from salaries’ is thus irrelevant.
THE Mumbai tribunal has recently said that for the purpose of scrutinising the assessee’s income, the assessing officer (AO) can issue a notice only for the limited scope as against loss, exemption and allowance or relief, which in his opinion is inadmissible, and not beyond that.The assessee filed the return declaring the income earned from sub-letting a premises as income from business. The AO selected the case for scrutiny and issued a notice for assessing the income as income from other sources.
EAGERNESS to appropriate the refund claim against pending dues was best observed in the case of Birla Copper vs. CCE, Vadodara . In that case, against an order-in-original of June 2003, the assessee had obtained an Unconditional Stay from the Tribunal in the month of August 2003. Later, in the month of June 2005, the Tribunal extended the Stay by stipulating “pending disposal of the appeal”. Incidentally, the matter came to be referred to the Third Member in view of difference in opinion.
THE jinxed tax that is Service Tax on GTA , is haunting the tax administration, courts and the hapless assessees for more than a decade. While the net collection from this tax would be less than peanut, the amount of litigation it has generated, must have cost the nation heavily – the Government should seriously consider doing away with this tax or maybe levying a flat 2% without credit.
ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – The grounds relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) . However, we are inclined to hold that levy of such interest is to be mandatorily levied in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the section, which the AO is directed to levy. The agitation with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature and is dismissed as rightly not considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well.
