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 : 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 deleted disallowance supported by debit notes despite ledger narration error and remanded the remaining claim for fresh verif...
Income Tax : ITAT restored a Section 12AB registration application, holding that mentioning the wrong code in Form 10AB was a rectifiable techn...
Income Tax : ITAT set aside rejection of fresh Sections 12AB and 80G applications and directed the CIT(E) to examine them independently on meri...
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...
Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs DCIT The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses on the ground that the payment was made prior to commencement of the hospitality business and had resulted into acquisition of technical know-how and franchise from the professional consultants and hence was capital in nature.
A reading of the provisions of section 80-IA(10) shows that when business transaction is so arranged that it produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits, which might be accepted to arise in such eligible business, then the Assessing Officer is empowered to restrict the allowance of deduction under section 80-IA to the amount of profit, which might reasonably be deemed to have been derived from the normal business transactions.
DCIT v. Bank of America NT & SA (ITAT Mumbai) – Tribunal held that interest received on income tax refund can be set-off against the interest paid on delayed payment of income tax and only net amount is to be taxed. The issue before the tribunal was that Whether interest income received by the taxpayer on income tax refund can be set-off against delayed payment on income tax? Whether the taxpayer can offer the net interest received as income?
The Tata Power Company Limited Vs ACIT- The Tribunal reiterated that the incidence of liability to pay DDT arises the moment such dividend is distributed (declared) and any subsequent events can have no bearing on such liability, even if such event renders dividend non-taxable in the hands of the recipient. It was not possible to extend the same analogy laid down by the cases cited pertaining to tax-ability of dividend in the hands of shareholder to a case of refund of DDT already paid by the Company declaring dividend.
Maa Vaishno Devi Ginning Pressing Udhyog Dhamnod Vs. DCIT (ITAT Indore) – No evidence was either found during survey or explained by the assessee which could establish that the surrendered income was earned from industrial undertaking. There is a uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that no purchase bills, sale bills, ginning charges bills, pressing charges bills were found during survey operation which remained to be recorded in regular course of business of industrial undertaking, therefore, there is no basis for claiming the surrendered income to be generated from/derived from the industrial undertaking. There is further finding that no entry tax, sales-tax, other taxes were found paid by the assessee on such unrecorded transactions, therefore, the onus is clearly on the assessee to substantiate its claim which has not been discharged.
By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of CIT(A)’s order dated 29th March 2010, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2 004-05, mainly on the following ground:
Assessee has been following cash system of accounting and this method has been regularly employed by the assessee in recording its day today business transaction. It is not a case where the assessee has been maintaining its accounts of day to day business under the mercantile system of accounting and thereafter prepares accounts in accordance with cash system of accounting for income tax purposes. The AO has placed strong reliance on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Amarpali Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.(supra).
DCIT Vs BP India Services Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Decisive factors for determining inclusion or exclusion of any case in/from the list of comparables are the specific characteristics of services provided , assets employed, risks assumed, the contractual terms and conditions prevailing including the geographical location and size of the markets, costs of labour and capital in the markets etc. Nowhere, the higher or lower profit rate, as presumed by the ld. CIT(A), has been prescribed as the determinative factor to make a case incomparable. Rightly so, because profit is not a factor in itself, but consequence of the effect of various factors. Only if the higher or lower profit rate results on account of the effect of factors given in rule 10B(2) read with sub-rule (3), that such case shall merit omission. If however such extreme profit rate is achieved because of factors other than those given in the rule, then such case would continue to find its place in the list of comparables.
Dredging International NV vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) – DRP cannot issue any directions which are at variance from the proposed draft order. Further, any provision made towards foreseeable losses is an allowable expenditure. The arguments are that the assessee has already shown the revenue receipt, i.e. work-in-progress at Rs. 19,83,63,908/- which was more than the contract receipts determined by the DRP at Rs.13,12,94,847/- and so the question of estimating revenue on the amount as directed by the DRP does not arise as contested in ground No. 3. Further, since assessee claimed the future loss of Rs.32,86,17,293/- and this future loss was proposed to be disallowed by the A.O. in the draft assessment order, the DRP cannot direct the A.O. to estimate the profit on 20% of the contract at 8%, which is at variance with the proposed draft order.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Rajesh Kumar Drolia- (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is earning job work charges as well as repairs and maintenance, which are included in job work charges, no doubt it is established that there is commercial connection between profits earned on account of repairs and maintenance and the industrial undertaking but for that source of profit is not directly from industrial undertaking. The business of industrial undertaking had directly to yield that profit to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act.
