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...
Since the assessment year involved in this appeal is 2005-06 Rule 8D of the IT Rules is not applicable in the present case keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. In this case the ld. CIT-Admn has issued jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act based on the order of the ITAT, Special Bench, which has been subsequently over ruled by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra). Therefore we are of the view that invoking of provision of section 263 of the IT Act is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we squash the order of ld. CIT-Admn and allow the appeal of assessee.
M/s Diamond Tool Industries Vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Gauhati High Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (supra) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) has held that Central Excise Duty has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly the refund of the Central Excise duty also had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. The issue of payment of Central Excise Duty would not arise in the absence of any industrial activity.
Essar Investments Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – On the identical facts the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 & 2000-2002 vide para 23 of the order dated 9.7.2008 has held that the assessee had advanced the loans to the group concerns for its business purpose, in such a case, interest on such advances cannot be disallowed. The similar view has been followed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 5083 & 5642/M/2007 for AYs 2000-2001 & 2003-2004 dated 11.12.2009.
Bypass Properties Private Ltd., Kolkata Vs. ITO (ITAT kolkata)- As per the alteration of security deposit clause dated 10.11.2006 which was placed at page 67 of the paper book it is observed that the lessee shall keep in deposit and advance which is the lessors a sum of Rs. 21 crores by interest free deposit . Then it was further stated in the said alteration that the amount of security deposit shall not refundable during the continuance of the lease period. Subsequently the lease period has been extended from 21 years to 62 years on 26.03.2007 which was placed at page 66 of the paper book.
Sujata Rajendra Nikalje Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – We find force in the alternate contention of the assesee. Admittedly, the assessee was in custody from 25th December, 2005 till 17th September, 2007 during which the assessment for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 were framed. Although the assessee was given opportunity during remand proceedings, we find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that due to her depressed mental state of affairs for being behind bars for above 2 years, the assessee was not in a position to substantiate her case and, therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues for both the assessment years to the file of the A.O. for denovo assessment. The A.O. shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
D.C.I.T., Central Circle-XIX Vs. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- All the impugned entries were analysed by the assessee company in detail and the entry to entry correlation with the cash workings filed by the applicants before the Honourable Settlement Commission were submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities. The entries of disclosed nature were also correlated with the regular books of account of the concerned persons and copies of relevant extracts of the regular accounts were filed with the A.O. As such, the ownership of the undisclosed entries by the concerned applicants and due reflection of disclosed entries in regular books of account were categorically established.
ACIT Vs. M/s Reliance Land Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee proved that interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. (7% interest on Rs. 538 crores) amounting to Rs. 2,78,58,082/- has been received from Swan Consultants (P) Ltd. on account of loan advanced to them. Further, the loan was taken on 28.4.2006 and given also on 28.4.2006. Similarly, interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. amounting to Rs. 5,60,54,795/- on account of loan of Rs. 300 crores @ 11% interest taken on 29.1.2007 has been given to Swan Consultants P. Ltd. on the same day on which equal amount of interest has been received from them.
Sunita Gupta Share Brokers Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- In ‘Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd..’ (supra), it has been held, inter alia, that any profit which arises on the forfeiture of shares is neither a revenue receipt, nor profit on the working of the company, but is simply the circulating capital of the company, and as such, a capital asset. Taking note of this, in ‘Asiatic Oxygen Ltd.'(supra), it was observed that Schedule VI – Part I of the Companies Act contains the form in which the balance sheet is to be prepared by the company and it indicate that all capital reserves of the company should be disclosed under the head ”Reserves and Supply” in the liability side of the balance sheet; that the assessee had credited the amount in respect of the forfeited shares under the head ‘capital reserve’; that thus, the Companies Act itself treats the profit on forfeiture of shares as capital reserve not available for distribution as evidence; that it could not therefore be held that the profit arising to the company on forfeiture of shares is a trading or business profit assessable in the hands of the company;
M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011.
Pradeep Khanduja Vs ITO – ITAT Delhi – even after passing of the assessment order, the assessee did not move any application before the ld. CIT(Appeals) for admission of additional evidence, which has now been filed before us, and which is sought to be admitted. Rule 10 deals with filing of affidavit and states that where a fact, which cannot be borne out by, or is contrary to, the record is alleged, it shall be stated clearly and concisely and supported by a duly sworn affidavit.
