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...
There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned CIT (A). It is observed that learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without considering the merits of the issues raised in the appeal filed by the assessee.
The return of income in the present case was filed at a loss of Rs.19,03,733/-. The only addition made to that loss is regarding depreciation claimed on computers which is granted by the Assessing Officer @15% as against the claim of the assessee of 60% and excess depreciation claimed by the assessee has been computed at Rs.66,15,933/-. Learned CIT (A) has granted relief to the assessee by way of an ex parte order on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vide order dated 31st August, 2010 in ITA No.1266/2010.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd reported in 322 ITR 0158(SC). has clearly held that the return of income is the only document where the assessee can furnish his particulars of income, where as in the instant appeal, the appellant company has not disclosed the receipt of premium received on renunciation of rights in its return of income nor in the computation of income accompanied with the return of income. So penalty for Concealment of Income is imposable U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee is a company engaged in management consultancy, implementation of internal controls, system audits, arranging finance from financial institutions and financing and advisory services in the capital markets. It is also doing NBFC business and is a Non-banking Finance Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India and is engaged in financing business sine 1986. During the impugned assessment year it disclosed long-term capital gain of Rs. 43,16,233/- along with short-term capital gain of Rs. 13,21,932/- (STT paid) and STGS of Rs. 19,865/-.
Assessee submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) and compute the deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC licenses in this case as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. We find substance in the above submissions of Shri Sudhir Sehgal and, therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue to Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra). The Assessing Officer should give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed.
The assessee borrowed money and instead of financing in rural areas invested the same in the company ‘J,’ where the founders of the assessee-trust are having substantial interest, which is contrary to the object of which the registration was granted to the assessee under section 12AA. Apart from the above, the assessee is paying interest on money borrowed without receiving any benefit from ‘J’. Therefore, the assessee borrowed money for the benefit of ‘J’ and not for the purpose of carrying on its object.
Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2003-04 and 2004-05 exactly on the issue of incidental expenses such as freight, octroi and sales tax whether to be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10B of the Act, respectfully following the same and in view of the above discussion carried out, we allow the appeal of the assessee. The revision order of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is quashed.
In the instant case, the assessee has already filed requisite details before the Assessing Officer and further detail was to be filed before the Assessing Officer and the latter refused to accept the same. Therefore, the assessee was compelled to file details by way of speed post. Further, new evidence filed by the assessee is from the Government agency and the same is essential for disposal of the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the new evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety and after recording reasons admitted the new evidences. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the admission of the new evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the interest of the quasi-judicial proceedings is to render justice and not to deny justice by declining to admit new evidence. The circumstances of the case duly justify admission of the new evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals).
One of the important Supreme Court decisions relied on by the counsels appearing for the assessees is the decision rendered in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 234, wherein the Hon’ble apex court has considered the question whether merely on account of such remittance to the non-resident abroad by an Indian company per se, could it be said that income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 arises in India.
