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...
WHAT is ‘manufacture’ ? The Income Tax Act does not define it all. Nor does it say that the scope and meaning of this word may be borrowed from the sister taxing statute of Central Excise Act. As a result, it continues to be a major loosely defined concept, provoking the Income Tax AOs to disallow benefits claimed by the industry. This is what happened even in this case.
This appeal by the taxpayer for the AY 2004-05 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) partially setting aside assessment under Section 263 of IT. Act made vide order dated 30 March, 2005 with directions to the Assessing Officer for the fresh determination of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction with AEs in the light of his directions.
15. In so far as the assessee’s contention that as the remuneration paid to the directors were increased in a properly called meeting of the Board of Directors, such payment is to be considered as reasonable and not excessive, we are of the view that this contention of the assessee would be of no much assistance to the assessee as discussed hereafter. There is no dispute in the fact that the Board of Directors
THE assessee company was incorporated during the financial year 1997-98. Originally, there was a company jointly promoted by Tatas and IBM , which were known as Tata IBM. During the financial year 1997-98, it was mutually agreed between the two promoters to bifurcate the business activities into separate entities viz. IBM Global Services India Private Limited (the assessee company) and Tata IBM . As per the agreement entered into, various assets of the erstwhile Tat IBM were transferred to the assessee company has paid amounts of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – and Rs. 5.3 Crore on account of transfer of certain employees to the assessee company and on account of transfer of the data base of the domestic business. The assessee company actually paid a sum of Rs. 18.4 crore for the transfer of the employees to the assessee company but claimed an expenditure of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – as the remaining sum of around Rs. 9.01 crore was attributable to STP Unit, income of which was exempt.
The assessee is a partnership firm constituted by the Deed of Partnership dated 22.1.1980 and consisted of two partners, viz., Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Ms. V Sasikala . In terms of the Deed of Partnership, the Assessee carries on the business of all types of printing and publishing of newspapers, magazines, periodicals etc. and such other business or businesses as may be mutually agreed to between the partners. On 30.4.1990, the Assessee purchased a factory shed consisting of ‘ 3650 sq.ft. along with a factory building from Shri K. Viswanathan as per the sale deed dated 30.4.1900. It was the contention of the Counsel that the Assessee had installed a printing press in the factory premises and started its business of printing and publishing the political newspaper titled ‘ Namadu MGR ‘ for circulation among public and various agencies. While completing the original assessments the Assessee ‘ s claim was not fully allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee went in appeal before the C.I.T.(Appeals) and he set aside the same. Since the Assessee failed to produce the contemporaneous primary evidence relating to the issue, he restricted the claim of the Assessee in all these years
Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) (i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a business connection because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income in India when the booking is completed on the subscribers’ computer; (ii) In determining the extent of profits attributable to such business connection, one has to look into the factors like functions performed, assets used and risk undertaken. On facts, as the major part of the work was processed at the host computer in Germany, only 15% of the revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings made in India can be said to have accrued or arisen in India;
In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHE before setting off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the gross total income. Before the Assessing Officer it was contended that section 80HHE is the self-contained section and contains the definition of profits of the business, export turnover, total turnover etc. Section 80AB refers to the nature of income entitled for deduction u/s VIA and include in the gross total income. Section 80HHE does not refer to any income included in the gross total income.
THE Special Bench decided on a substantial question of Law. A bench of the Tribunal decides an issue in favour of the assessee. The Revenue goes in appeal to the High Court, which dismisses the appeal as there was no substantial question of law. Is this decision of the High Court a binding precedent on the Special bench? `Yes’, ruled the Bench.
The Tribunal held that even if the amount received by the assessee on redemption of share appreciation right is held to be not taxable under the head `income from salaries’ this fact, by itself would not take the same outside the ambit of taxable income, since, in such an eventuality, the said amount will be taxable under the head `income from other sources’. Even if it is held that amount in question is received from a person other than the employer of the assessee, and that in order for an income to be taxed under the head `income from salaries it is a condition precedent that the salary, benefit or the consideration must flow from employer to the employee, the amount received by the assessee on redemption of stock appreciation rights will still be taxable – though under the head `Income from other sources’. The plea raised by the assessee that the amount in question cannot be taxed as `income from salaries’ is thus irrelevant.
THE Mumbai tribunal has recently said that for the purpose of scrutinising the assessee’s income, the assessing officer (AO) can issue a notice only for the limited scope as against loss, exemption and allowance or relief, which in his opinion is inadmissible, and not beyond that.The assessee filed the return declaring the income earned from sub-letting a premises as income from business. The AO selected the case for scrutiny and issued a notice for assessing the income as income from other sources.
