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 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.
EAGERNESS to appropriate the refund claim against pending dues was best observed in the case of Birla Copper vs. CCE, Vadodara . In that case, against an order-in-original of June 2003, the assessee had obtained an Unconditional Stay from the Tribunal in the month of August 2003. Later, in the month of June 2005, the Tribunal extended the Stay by stipulating “pending disposal of the appeal”. Incidentally, the matter came to be referred to the Third Member in view of difference in opinion.
THE jinxed tax that is Service Tax on GTA , is haunting the tax administration, courts and the hapless assessees for more than a decade. While the net collection from this tax would be less than peanut, the amount of litigation it has generated, must have cost the nation heavily – the Government should seriously consider doing away with this tax or maybe levying a flat 2% without credit.
ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – The grounds relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) . However, we are inclined to hold that levy of such interest is to be mandatorily levied in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the section, which the AO is directed to levy. The agitation with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature and is dismissed as rightly not considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the rent and deposits received by the intermediary tenant from the ultimate user of the premises or the rent and deposit received by the assessee from the intermediary tenant, who never occupied the premises is to be taken for the computation of the net wealth of the assessee for valuation under Rule 3 of part B of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?
Since excise duty and sales tax did not involve any such turnover such taxes had to be excluded. Commission, interest, rent, etc. do yield profits, but they do not partake of the character of turnover and therefore they are not includible in the total turnover. If so, excise duty and sales tax also cannot form part of the total turnover under section 80HHC(3).
It was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to show in the reasons recorded by him that any income escaped assessment due to error or omission on the part of the assessee in not disclosing all material facts relevant for assessment of this year. The assessment order does not show any error or omission on the part of the assessee in disclosing all material facts. So the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the re-assessment.
