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 reliance on third-party statements without granting effective cross-examination amounted to a violation of ...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that Section 87A rebate is linked to total income, which includes short-term capital gains. CPC's denial of rebate o...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that once an assessee validly opts for the DCF method and submits a qualified valuation report, the Assessing O...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
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 : The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investm...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional interest under Section 244A(1A) because the Assessing Officer faile...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that once Second Line Support services were examined and covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement, disallowanc...
Income Tax : ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effec...
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, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
what needs to be done by an assessing authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in examining the claim of an assessee that the payment made by such assessee was a deductible expenditure under $.37 of the Income-tax Act although called a penalty is to see whether the law or scheme under which the amount was paid required such payment to be made as penalty or as something akin to penalty,
In a nut-shell, it is held that the instance case is one of rendering multi-farious services for production of films by foreign companies in India and handing over the negatives to them in India. This does not involve export or transfer outside India by any means of any film software by the assessee.
Regarding the addition made u/s 41(1), we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly invoked this provision. There is neither any remission nor cessation of the liability. The Assessing Officer has simply added all the credits appearing in the balance sheet which could not be hit by Section 41(1).
We have the rival submissions and perused the records. During the year under consideration the assessee society had claimed as exempt a sum or Rs. 10.00 Lakhs received on account of damages for wrongful proceedings against the society taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. Mr. Manojkumar Goswami & Mrs. Shashi Goswami
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
The revision u/s. 263 is not like the reopening of the assessment where once the assessment is reopened entire assessment is open before the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered in accordance with law. In the revision proceedings, the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice.
The provisions of the section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497,502 (Bom).
Having an effective management in India is not a sufficient ground to deny exemption from capital gains tax to a company that is based in Mauritius, ruled a Delhi bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT held that under the India-Mauritius double taxation avoidance agreement
