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...
Section 32 of the Income Tax Act allows depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets and clause [ii] thereof enumerates the intangible assets on which depreciation is allowable. The assets which are included in the definition of `intangible assets’ given in clause [ii] are know-how, patents, copy rights, trademarks, licenses, franchises etc.,
13. It may be mentioned that provisions of section 145A were inserted by the Finance Act No. 2, 1998 w.e.f. 1-4-1999. It may be mentioned that prior to assessment year 1998-99 the entire provisions relating to method of accounting were contained in sec. 145 only. As per that sec. The income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’ or ‘other sources’
Apart from said business, the assessee invested in shares and treats shares as investment in his books of account. This itself manifests the intention of the assessee as to whether he proposed into dealing in shares or earn dividend and profit out of such investment. The Assessing Officer was guided more because of the total amount involved rather than the actual intention and the way of carrying on share transaction.
Section 10 provides for the incomes which do not form part of total income, and cl.[i] of sub-sec.[14] of sec. 10 provides that any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite within the meaning of clause [2] of sec. 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit, to t
he letter-cum-certific ate issued by the donors were undated, letter given by Shri Habib-ur Rehman was signed by his wife, the details about the bank account were either not filled in the letters sent by the donors or the numbers of bank account given were incorrect, signatures of Smt Badrun-nisan Hanfi as given on the letter and -as signed on the cheque did not match
The ownership issue was discussed in the assessment order and in his opinion the deduction u/s 33AC is allowed keeping the intention of generating the internal resources to augment their fleet and the contents of Circular of the Board dated 13-2-1990 is the basis for the same. On the contrary, the impugned order does not refer to this issue.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that any expenditure, which is viewed as an offence or is prohibited by law, but is of a commercial nature incurred in the normal course of business, can be treated as an outgo at the time of calculating tax liabilities.
Assessee is treating the securities held under the, category ‘held for maturity’ as stock-in-trade. If there is appreciation in the market value as compared to the market value at the opening of the year and such appreciation is also accounted for. It is not claiming depreciation only for the years, when the value has gone down.
A ‘derivative’ is a security representing the value of the underlying stocks and shares and must be given the same treatment as that given to the stocks and shares. Also, s. 43 (5) uses the term “commodity” in a wide sense and covers ‘derivatives’.
Coming to the first point of difference it seems to me that even after the introduction of block of assets concept, there is no change in the legal position to the effect that the assessee^ would be entitled to depreciation even though the assets in question were not actually put to use in the relevant previous year, but were kept ready for being put to use for the purpose of the business. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, on this question is in C1T vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court was concerned with the assessment year 1971-72 and with the claim of development of rebate made by the assessee, Sec.33 of the Act dealt with development rebate. An assessee can c
