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 : Bangalore ITAT held that the Revenue cannot deny the fifth-year deduction under Section 35D after consistently allowing the claim ...
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 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 : ITAT Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal C...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to it...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Comm...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be invoked where shares were allotted at a premium to a 100% holding company. T...
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...
In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the findings of Id. CIT(A) that activities undertaken by the taxpayer were in respect of production and export of computer software within the meaning of provisions of section 10B of the Act, especially when the AO himself concluded so for the purpose of section 80HHE of the Act. We are also in agreement with the uncontroverted submission of the Id. AR on behalf of the taxpayer that the taxpayer did not claim any deduction in AY 1996-97 and for the first time claimed deduction u/s 10B in AY 19987-98 and this being the 5th year, claim has to allowed.
12. The provisions of sections 80IB/80IA are the code by themselves as they contains both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Therefore, we need to examine what these provisions prescribe to the issue of the manner of `computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business’. In this regard, the relevant sub-sections ie 80-IB(l), 80-IB(13) & 80-IA(5) of the said sections are important and they are reproduced here under for ready reference.
Sec.43B can only be invoked when the assessee claims deduction for any sum payable by way of tax or duty, under any law for the time being in force, and, as such, where no such deduction is claimed nor charged made to the profit and loss account, there is no question of disallowing the amount. Having regard to the facts, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under sec.43B.
6. We have verified the orders and heard:the rival contentions. There is no dispute that there was a qualification in the auditors report whereby the auditors had mentioned Rs.27,47,258/ – as the adjustment required u/s. 145A of the Act for the purpose of valuing the closing stock. Copy of the computation statement for the relevant Assessment Year filed by the assessee show that it had made a suo motu addition
I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me and the precedents relied upon. The assessee got share in the house property, as per the WILL of his father He became the joint owner of the property along with his brother. After becoming the joint owner of the said property the assessee sold shares for the purpose of construction of an additional floor in the house for him and the cost to the construction was claimed as exempted under sec 54F.
3. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. Learned Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(Appeals) have given much emphasis on the point whether assessee has committed a default within the meaning of sec. 194-A by not deducting the TDS when interest was credited to the interest provision account, In their opinions, assessee was following mercantile system of accounting
9. Part A of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) provides that if assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers and explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false. This explanation can therefore, be applied only where the assessee has either not offered any Explanation or where he has offered any Explanation
15. Therefore, in our view, the issue involved in the present appeals is essentially a question of fact and once this question is answered, the application of appropriate legal principles should not present much difficulty. We find considerable strength in the submission of the assessee that facts in its case were distinguishable from those in the case of Shambhu Investments (supra)
15.2 On a careful reading of section 6(1) alongwith the circular cited above we are of the considered opinion that where the individual is resident in the previous year, but was not a resident in India in 9 out of 10 previous years preceding the year or was in India for a total period of 730 days or more in seven previous years then his residential status will be that of resident but not ordinarily resident
21. In view of the above submissions of the assessee and in view of the fact that M/s.Sky Blue Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. is sister concern of the assessee, we find no merit in the contentions of the assessee that the transaction between the assessee and M/s.Sky Blue Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. fell through because of the non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding
