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...
DCIT Vs. Diamond ‘R’ US (ITAT Mumbai) – Exchange loss on refund of advances received from the customers is concerned, the same indeed constitutes admissible deduction irrespective of whether or not the amount so received were diverted to use by partners. It is so for the elementary reason that the proximate cost of loss having been incurred is receipt of advances from the customers and refunding the same-an exercise which is clearly in the course of normal business operations.
ADIT(IT) Vs Aditya Vikram Global House Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Royalty payment pursuant to a technical collaboration agreement in accordance with the Industrial policy of the Government of India, is exempt in the hands of the foreign company under clause (a) of Section 10(6A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also held that approval of the Reserve Bank of India is sufficient confirmation that the technical collaboration agreement is in accordance with the Industrial Policy.
Taurus Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It was held that the new export-oriented unit of the assessee cannot be said to be formed by the reconstruction or splitting of a business already in existence. The Tribunal has also held that it is not necessary for the assessee to produce its products so as to become eligible for claiming exemption under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
De Beers India Prospecting Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) – it was held that prospecting and examining are important activities to undertake mining. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the taxpayer had commenced its business from the time it started the prospecting activity and therefore, non-prospecting related expenditure is deductible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) even though it was incurred prior to commencement of mining.
DCIT Vs. J.K. Investo Trade (India) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Issue before the Tribunal was that Whether non-compete fees payable pursuant to a joint venture agreement for transfer of manufacturing division, through a Scheme of arrangement, which is sanctioned by the High Court is taxable in the year of Appointed Date or Year of sanction of the Scheme or on receipt?
Twinstar Jupiter Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – In the case of Sindh CHS Ltd (supra) the Honble High Court made it clear that in the said case the bye-laws provide that the amount has to be paid by the transferor Member. In the present case, nowhere it is the case of the A.O. that there is a provision that only the transferor has to bear the amount of the transfer fees. We, further, find that nowhere it is the case of the A.O. that no commerciality is involved in the objects or activities of the assessee society as the assessee has credited the amount to the general reserve funds to be used for the repairs and maintenance of the society. Their Lordships have also considered the Notification given by the Government of Maharashtra and the reference made is to only to extent of argument of the parties to the on Govt notification dated 9.8.2001. As per the notification dated 10.12.1989 if the bye-laws are amended then only the society could not charge what was set out in the notification.
Chadha Finlease Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted.
ITO Vs. Nasir Khan J. Mahadik (ITAT Mumbai)-Mumbai ITAT has in the following case deleted the additions made on account of opening balances of unsecured loans and the notional interest on such loans. The Tribunal held that only fresh loans or additions to the loans during the year in question can be considered for the purpose of addition. Previous years loans cannot be added to subsequent year’s income by claiming them to be unexplained.
ADIT (E) Vs International Goudiya Vedanta Trust (ITAT Delhi)- The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Tiny Tots Education Society (supra) has held that the income of the assessee, being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust and as such, it could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing the income for purposes of Section 11 of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow depreciation and reduce the same from the income of the trust for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is thus upheld.
P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) – Assessing Officer is vested with a discretionary power to levy or not to levy any penalty in a deserving case. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) (SC), held that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The Assessing Officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. If an assessee files the revised return though at a later stage or disclosed true income, penalty need not be levied. No doubt, merely offering additional income will not automatically protect the assessee from levy of penalty but in a given case where the assessee’s case, came forward with additional income though after deduction on account of that the assessee was not in a position to explain properly,
