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 Chennai deletes penalties under Sections 41 and 43 of BMA, holding non-disclosure of ESOP shares in Schedule FA was an inadve...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune holds ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS 2019 exempt as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B) of t...
Income Tax : ITAT allowed full exemption for BSNL VRS retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), granted leave encashment exemption under...
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 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...
According to well established law, learned CIT (A) is required to dispose of the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. We also found that the assessee, due to change of her correspondence address, was not actually served with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A).
In the case of CIT Vs. SPL’s Siddharth Ltd. (Supra), before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the facts were that notice issued by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken.
Since in this case, the land is acquired compulsorily and no amount of compensation has been received by the assessee and further, the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and has not attained finality, therefore, the provisions of section 2(47) (iii) and (v) section 45(5) would not apply in the case of the assessee.
However, it is to be made clear that if no material was found during the search which could show suppression of income, no estimation of undisclosed income of block period by resorting to section 145 could be made. In other words, where there is a material, such an estimation of income can be made. It is not necessary that addition should be limited to what is found during the search.
The making of a new claim if any before the Assessing Officer is required to be done only by way of filing the revised return of income and not by way of letters or by way of filing revised computation etc. But when comes to the Tribunal or for that matter the Commissioner (Appeals), who is also not the Assessing Officer, but who is the appellate authority, assessee does not have to initiate a new claim before them by way of filing the revised return of income.
Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 has clearly held that for making a claim other than what was originally made in return of income, filing of a revised return is mandatory. Neither the A.O. nor the CIT(Appeals) have considered these fundamental aspects regarding status and validity of a claim made other than through revised return.
The question arises is whether the assessee is entitled for the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is explicitly clear that if the co-operative society is engaged in the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members the co-operative society is entitled for the deduction. There is an embargo put by section 80P(4) which was introduced into the statute by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1-4-2007. This section denies the deduction to a co-operative bank. It is a fact that prior to the insertion of sub-section (4) ,the assessee was getting the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Requirement of section 54EC to the effect that investment in specified assets is to be made within a period of six months from the date of transfer, was put to some clarification by the CBDT in Circular No 791 (supra). The question arose before the CBDT regarding exemption of a long term capital asset which had arisen on conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade.
From a bare reading of section 139 and 153A , it is evident that the provisions of section 271F are attracted when a person is required to furnish the return in accordance with section 139(1) or by provisos of that section. Section 153A starts with non-obstante clause and the purpose is only to specify separate time limit for filing the return. The only distinction in section 153A is that the AO is required to issue notice to the assessee requiring him to furnish the return within such period, as may be specified in notice, but otherwise the provisions of the Act have been made applicable accordingly, as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 139. Therefore, all the consequences following for failure to file the return u/s.139 will follow u/s.153A also. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT (A) to interfere and, accordingly, uphold the same.
Mastek Limited Vs. The Addl.CIT ITAT that the taxpayer’s UK subsidiary was not merely undertaking marketing activities. The Tribunal held that the UK subsidiary should be characterised as a distributor on the basis of its agreement with the taxpayer, selling efforts, market and credit risks and overall business strategies. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reward has to be determined with regard to return on sales rather than a mark-up on value added expenses (marketing and selling expenses).
