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...
Though there is no definition of the term ‘total turnover’ in section 10A, there is also nothing in the said section to mandate that what is excluded from the numerator (export turnover) would nevertheless form part of the denominator. One would have to apply consistent standards in understanding and applying a term, particularly when, such term, viz. export turnover has an independent function and at the same time a part of a larger term viz., total turnover.Thus, if some expenses, for any reason are excluded in arriving at the ‘export turnover’ the same should be reduced form ‘total turnover’ also.
: IT is not only the Ministry of Commerce which is struggling to sculpt a perfect substitute for the most popular exports incentive scheme of DEPB, even the Income Tax Department has been breaking its head against multiple possibilities as to how to treat the value of DEPB. And the very same question came before the Tribunal in a recent case. The merchant exporter had computed its Sec 80HHC benefits by taking into consideration the DEPB income whereas the A.O. did not consider DEPB income as eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Let’ take a quick stroll through the various arguments and the recent judicial pronouncements which enabled the Tribunal to form a concrete opinion on this contentious issue.
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
A Special Bench of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that the income tax that an employer pays on behalf of its employee is a non-monetary benefit in kind and, therefore, exempt from tax. The Tribunal’s ruling will benefit multinational companies operating through liaison and sales offices and unregistered Indian companies, some of which are known to bear the tax costs for their employees.
Deferred tax liability is a provision for tax effect of difference between taxable and accounting income – Not a provision for I -T paid or payable – it is also not reserve as same cannot be transferred to P&L a/c, unlike a regular reserve – ITAT
the various managerial, technical and consultancy services provided by the foreign contractor from the foreign country in connection with the construction project without actually taking up any such activities in India, will not be covered within the meaning of the words used in the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii). In other words the payments made for various services provided from abroad by the foreign contractor will be taxable as income in the hands of the recipient under the provisions of the Act and accordingly the payments made by the assessee to the foreign contractor are liable for the deduction of tax at source.
The rigour of sec.43B may be applicable in the case of Sales-tax or Excise Duty but the same cannot be said to be the position in case of Service-tax because of two reasons. Firstly, the Assessee is never allowed deduction on account of service tax which is collected on behalf of the Govt., and paid to the Govt. accordingly. Therefore, a service provider is merely acting as an agent of the Govt., and is not entitled to claim deduction on account of service tax. Hence, on this account alone addition under sec.43B could not be made
The issue before the Tribunal is the gifts amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs in cash and Rs. 62 Lakhs in immovable property received by Mayavati. The donors had even borrowed money and made the gifts to her. The AO was not convinced but the CIT(A) was and Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee Mayavati is also before the Tribunal pleading Standard deduction of Rs. 30,000/-.
If in law income has to be taxed in hands of AOP, it has to be taxed as such, and mere fact that the income is taxed in hands of individual members of AOP, does not bar Assessing Officer from taxing AOP-ITAT . In a recent case of Pradeep Agencies-v.- Income-tax Officer Delhi Tribunal held that even if the income is taxed in hands of individual members of AOP, does not bar Assessing Officer from taxing AOP.
As per sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 40 which has been substituted by Finance Act 1988 w.e.f 1st April 1989 to extend the applicability of the clause also to the payments made to non-resident of royalty, fee for technical services or any other payment chargeable under this Act. Now, the inclusion of the words ‘any another payments’ in the amended provision has widened the scope of the meaning of the word payment and so the payments made by the assessee through M/s Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, Netherlands to the non-residents in respect of mobilization and demobilization charges amounting to Rs. 8,65,57,909/- under consideration is covered within the provision of section 40 (a) (i) of the Act.
