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...
GRID-CO Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)-The Tribunal observed that Circular No. 5 and Circular No. 736 had given restricted meaning to the word ‘rent’. However, in view of the decisions relied by the tax department, the word ‘rent’ is to be given a wider meaning. Accordingly, the contention of the taxpayer on this aspect was rejected. Since, the taxpayer supplied power through the transmission lines of OPTCL, the taxpayer merely obtained a service from OPTCL which had the infrastructure in the form of equipment and transmission lines.
DCIT Vs. Divine International (ITAT Delhi) – The CIT(A) has denied the deduction in respect of the addition on account of the so called sundry creditors on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 80 HHC, it is only the income derived by the assessee from the export of such merchandise which is eligible and the addition on account of creditors cannot be considered as income derived from the exports.
As the consideration for live broadcasting does not fall either u/s 9(1)(i) or u/s 9(1)(vi), in our considered opinion, such amount is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of this Act in the hands of non-resident. As such there is no question of deduction of tax at source. Asstt. DIT (Intl. Tax.) v. M/s.Neo Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITAT mumbai) –
The contention of the assessee is that the agricultural operations were carried out on the land under consideration. During the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to inspect the lands at that stage. The assessee also filed pahani patrika for the financial year 2006-07, the slab pass-book issued by the Electricity Board before the lower authorities. It was also submitted that there was an open well in the land and water was supplied to the crop through electric motor pumping.
ITO V. M/s. S-Net Freight (India) P. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – The Tribunal order has recognised that beneficial ownership and legal ownership could be different and for the purpose of section 79 of the Act, the beneficial ownership was relevant. Accordingly, share transfers by nominees or trustees of the beneficial owner would not trigger the provisions of section 79 of the Act while the beneficial ownership did not change beyond 51 percent.
ACIT vs. The Total Packaging Services (ITAT Mumbai)- The payment of Central excise duty has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly, the refund of the Central excise duty also has 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. There is, therefore, an inextricable link between the manufacturing activity, the payment of Central excise duty and its refund. So Assessee is eligible to deduction u/s. Sec. 80IB(1) on Excise Duty Refund/Modvat Credit.
Shri. Anil H. Lad v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Where the depreciation and loss of earlier assessment years have already been set off against other business income of those assessment years, there is no need for notionally carrying forward and setting off of the same depreciation and loss in computing the quantum of deduction available u/s.80I.
SBS Clothing (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – In this case, there was 5-fold increase on account of payment of salary when there was no substantial increase in the turnover. The AO vide note dated 25.10.2007 had asked for reasons for exorbitant rise in salary to which assessee filed letter dated 19.11.2003 replied that the same was because of payment made to job workers in the earlier years whereas in the current year job workers had been taken on salary basis and salary had been paid to them.
ACIT Vs Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (ITAT Mumbai) – So far as the receipts on account of tender forms and by way of water and electricity charges to the contractors were concerned, they would not be treated as arising out of a source of income separate from the business which was being set up. Since, the business had not been fully set up, the receipts and payments would be clearly on capital account and hence not liable to tax. In a case where these receipts and payments pertains to the fixed structure of the company’s business that was being set up, it would be inconsistent to hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee prior to the setting up would be of a capital nature but the receipts would be of a revenue nature.Hence, the impugned receipts were of a capital nature and were not liable to tax.
In our considered opinion, the authorities below were not justified in not granting the set off of the brought forward business loss for the reason that the requirement to file return within the time prescribed u/s.139(1) is for carrying forward the loss. Once loss is determined in the return file u/s.139(3), the assessee becomes eligible for set off against the income of the subsequent years irrespective of the fact whether the returns of such later years are filed u/s.139(1) or not. Sec. 80 read with sec. 139(3) requires the submission of return for loss before the due date.
