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...
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently pronounced its ruling in the case of SSL-TTK Ltd. (Appeal no. ITA No. 544/Mds/2011), wherein the Tribunal ruled that a notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer [“TPO”] under section 92CA (3) of the Act cannot be considered as a notice issued under Section 92D (3) and hence non-compliance of the taxpayer would not attract levy of penalty under Section 271 G1 of the Act. Further, the taxpayer had made substantial compliance of filing the information as required by the letter issued by the TPO and the arm’s length price was accepted by the TPO.
Fees paid to regularise violation in construction of a building pursuant to state government ordinance forms part of construction cost and depreciation is allowable on such cost under Section 32 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further the Tribunal held that the restriction provided under Section 37 of the Act on deduction of penal expenditure is not applicable to depreciation claim covered under Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal has also held that the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 (Kar) relied by the tax department is also not applicable to the facts of the case.
Prakash Securities Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Asst. Comm. of Income Tax The dispute is regarding disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the IT Act. Under the provisions of Section 14(2) and 14(3), expenses relating to exempt income are required to be computed as per method prescribed by the Government. The Government has since notified the method in the form of Rule 8D w.e.f. 1.4.2008.
Section 149 of the 1961 Act, which provides the period limitation, categorically provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued after the period prescribed has lapsed. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed to reassess.
ACIT vs. Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (ITAT Mumbai) – The issue raised by the Assessee is that while computing capital gain cost of improvement should also be capable of being determined. The dispute in the case decided by Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D.Mehtha (supra) and Maheshwar Prasad-2 CHS Ltd. (supra) was while computing capital gain cost of acquisition of the capital asset was not capable of determination.
The sum in question was not paid for transfer of any intangible right in respect of manufacture, production or process of cement. The provisions relating to capital gains are therefore not attracted. The amount was paid for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ and would fall within the ambit of Sec.28(va)(a) of the Act. The payment in question clearly falls under the category of a payment for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ which at the relevant point of time of accrual in the hands of B.V.Raju, viz., 27.10.1999, was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
ITO Vs. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Definition given in Explanation to sec. 42, section 293A as well as in various clauses of Production Sharing Contract it does not require to undergo any process of any physical or composition change but after the process of separation of gas, water and other sedimentary elements become commercial commodity. Therefore, commercial production of mineral oil as per sec. 80IB (9) involves the activity of extracting oil from underneath of surface and transport it for sale and nothing else.
AIA Engineering Ltd Vs. Add CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It was held that investment made by AIA Engineering Limited (AIA India or the assessee) in Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE (Vega UAE) shall not be treated as investment in a proprietary concern of AIA India though Vega UAE had no other shareholder.Vega UAE is considered to be established as an independent corporate entity with separate financial liability from those of its owner in accordance with the memorandum of incorporation and the only situation where the owner will be treated as personally responsible is regarding the omission of some specified information.
ACIT Vs. Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that the sharing of net revenues (i.e., amounts billed to customers less third party costs) in a 5o:5o ratio between the origin and destination companies in a consistent manner in controlled as well as uncontrolled transactions, constitutes a comparable uncontrolled price (CUP). In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the 5o:5o model is a common industry practice.
DDIT Vs. Western Union Financial Services Inc (ITAT Delhi)- ITAT held that the taxpayer’s agents in India were independent agents under Article 5(5) of the India-USA tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, there was no Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the taxpayer in India. Further, the Tribunal observed that the taxpayer did not have right to enter and make use of the premises of the agents for its business. Accordingly, it was concluded that there was no fixed place PE of the taxpayer in India as per Article 5(1) of the tax treaty.
