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...
Transaction relating to gift considered in regular assessment and nothing found during search or in post-search probe – transaction cannot be treated as undisclosed nor income from this transaction to be treated as undisclosed – ITAT
Shares bought for Rs 5.25 Cr sold for Rs 52.5 lakh in same yr – capital loss allowed by AO – CIT can review order only if it is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue; both ingredients should be present – ITAT
THE main point raised in this appeal is against the reduction in the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC. The facts are that the return of income was filed claiming deduction u/s. 80HHC at Rs. 7,38,416/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that there was a net profit of Rs. 14,54,272/- on total export turnover of Rs. 2,48,26,964/ -. The net profit included Duty draw back turnover of Rs. 21,10,298/- and DEPB of Rs. 6,63,942/-. The Assessing Officer on verification of export in Form No. 10CCAC observed that the assessee has Loss on export turnover at Rs. 10,19,985/-.
Disallowance of travel by employees: the assessee had calculated the disallowance under Rule 6D with total number of travels undertaken by each employee during the year. This means that the disallowance was worked after setting off disallowables on one trip against the deficit in another trip in respect of each employee. However, the Assessing Officer observed that this disallowance under Rule 6D has to be computed with respect to each travel and ultimately, made an addition of Rs.2,00,000/ – which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
It is the legal owner (i.e. the assessee in the case before us) who is liable to the wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets licensed/leased by him for a term of less than twelve years as laid down in section 269UA(f). However, the legal owner shall not be liable to wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets leased by him for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act. It is in fact the person acquiring any rights (i.e., lessee) in or with respect to any building under a lease for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act who shall be deemed to be the owner thereof in terms of the provisions of section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act.
Whether, a Provision for Non Performing Assets (‘NPA’) debited to profit and loss account and claimed as a deduction in accordance with the prudential norms issued by the RBI in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 45JA of the RBI Act, 1934, called the Non Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, should be allowed as deduction while computing income from business under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
Warrant of authorisation issued by Addl Director without proper authority – entire search and assessment consequent to such invalid search is bad in law and annulled -ITAT. The warrant of authorization issued in the present case by the Addl. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) has therefore to be held without proper authority and the entire search as well as the assessment proceedings consequent to such invalid search has to be held bad in law and annulled.
THE assessee company was incorporated with the main object of acquiring a holding of equity and preference shares of companies engaged in the business of cement, ready mix and aggregate and to provide financial management. It was the first return of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer noted that the total capital was at Rs.209.33 crores which was raised during this year, out of which a sum of Rs.207.78 crores was invested in the shares of Lafarge India Ltd. The assessee company also earned interest on fixed deposits of Rs.2,28,000/ – against which, it had claimed administrative and other expenses to the tune of Rs.2,69,85,000/ -.
THE assessee approached CIT(A) in appeal whereby CIT (A) allowed interest on refund of interest paid u/s 243B of the Income Tax Act. And predictably, the Revenue moved Tribunal in appeal against the said order.In this case, the refund is out of payments made by the assessee, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 244A would be workable as the date of payment by the assessee of the amount refunded is known with which the interest is to run.
IT is now an axiomatic law that Board circulars are binding on the Department, even if they are wrong or against decisions of the Supreme Court. But our Boards do not have the habit of tracking down the multitude of circulars they issue and considering whether they are relevant after the Law has been amended and the Apex Court had already ruled on the issue. In the Dhiren Chemicals case (2002-TIOL-83- SC-CX), the Supreme Court had held that if there was a Board Circular which was not in tune with the views of the Supreme Court, the Board Circular would prevail. The whole idea is that the Department should not be seen arguing that the Board was wrong – even if it is wrong, the Departmental officers should be bound by it.
