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...
Burmah Castrol vs. DIT Mumbai The applicant, Burmah Castrol Plc. is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. The applicant submits that during the financial year 2001-02, as per the directive of SEBI, it acquired 12,77,292 equity shares of Foseco India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “FIL”), an Indian company, for an acquisition price of Rs. 221.86 per share and also as per those directives paid a further amount of Rs.49.1429per share for the delay in making the Open Offer.
ITO VS. VARIA PRATIK (ITAT A’BAD) Though s. 292BB comes into force on 1.4.2008 and not from any particular assessment year, it is declaratory, procedural and curative in nature and accordingly the validity of notices issued/served will have to be decided after 31.3.2008 in accordance with the provisions of section 292BB irrespective of the assessment year involved;
SHIVSAGAR VEG VS. ACIT It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable
Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. JCIT The deduction claimed by the assessee under section 42 cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the deemed income under section 115JA
Valuing the closing stock at net realizable value method is duly recognized by AS-2 issued by the ICAI but, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the net realizable value whatever has been shown by him is the correct net realizable value and is less than the cost: the assessee has to satisfy the Assessing Officer by adducing the evidence that the net realizable value is less than the cost. D. Subhashchandra & Co. v. ACIT
ACIT v Makote Hoshizaki The perquisite value of rent free accommodation as per Rule 3 of Income-tax Rules, 1962 will be 20 per cent and not 10 per cent of the salary as reduced by the rent, if any, actually paid by the employer or the actual rent paid by the employer in case the premises are not owned by the employer whichever is lower.
BLK Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO The assessee company shall, for the purpose of section 73 of the IT Act, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which its business consists of the purchase and sale of shares of other companies; thus, the loss incurred in purchase and sale of shares of other companies shall be deemed to be a speculation loss.
Thermal Systems (Hyd.) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT The failure of the Assessing Officer to record the reasons and to make enquiry with regard to the claim of the assessee makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
We have considered the, rival submissions, perused the material on record. In the instant case, rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR on 05.07.2001, A copy of the summary record of the proceedings of the hearing held on 5.7.2001 before BIFR- have been placed in the Paper Book. It has been held in the aforesaid proceedings para 22 as under:
Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. DCIT – For the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under section 80-I, the taxable income of the industrial undertaking is to be ascertained as if such undertaking were an independent unit owned by the assessee and the assessee had no other source of income; consequently, the unabsorbed losses/deprecation, etc. relating to the eligible industrial undertaking are to be taken into account in determining the quantum of deduction under section 80-I even though these may actually have been set off against the profits of the assessee from other sources of income of the assessee.
