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 : Article examines whether the MLI Principal Purpose Test has domestic effect under Section 90(1) following Nestlé SA and Sky High ...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : ITAT held that delayed filing of Form 10B cannot defeat Section 11 exemption if the audit report is available before processing un...
Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held Section 2(47)(v) inapplicable as the JDA did not satisfy Section 53A conditions, deleting capital gains for AY...
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 : ITAT Bangalore deleted estimated gross profit addition, holding that accepted books of account could not justify estimation withou...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad quashed reassessment as Section 148 notice lacked approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) for A...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi restored a Section 44ADA addition to the AO for fresh examination after directing consideration of correct GSTR figures...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune reduced the gross profit addition by applying a 2% GP rate after considering past scrutiny records and comparable sister...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Section 56(2)(x) addition after finding the AO did not establish that repayment of the corporate l...
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...
I have duly considered the rival contentions and the material en record. The perception of the CIT that the profit is low prompted him to issue show cause notice to the assessee. Profit before taxation of the company as a whole for the year under consideration
A perusal of section 14A (2)(supra), evinces that the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in the total income shall be determined by the AO if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income not includible in the total income.
Admittedly there was no DTAA with Hongkong for the relevant year. As such we will restrict ourselves in examining the provisions of section 9(l)(vii) in order to ascertain the deductibility or otherwise of tax at source from the payment so made to the firm of legal advisors at Hongkong.
Provided further that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income show in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on that portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return.”
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee towards undisclosed income from the liquor business carried on by the firms M/s. Malabar Associates.
The facts leading up to the levy of penalty have been stated in the dissenting orders and there is no dispute regarding their accuracy. The only question is whether on these facts there was reasonable cause within the meaning of sec.273B preventing the assessee from accepting the sum of Rs. 15,00,000 from N.K. Chemist by account payee cheque or draft as required by sec.269SS.
I entirely agree that unless and until the terms and conditions of advance are known and agreed between the parties or through Government of Kerala, assessee will not acquire any right to receive interest on the advanced loan and no income would accrue by way of interest. This is well settled position.
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) which was rejected by the AO but allowed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee and held that it was not eligible for deduction. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254 (2) pointing out that it had cited a judgement of the Kolkota Bench of the Tribunal (which had been considered by the CIT (A)) and a judgement of the Kolkota High Court which had not been considered by the Tribunal when deciding the appeal and the same was a ‘mistake apparent from the record’.
Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Minimum alternate tax – Assessment year 2000-01 – Assessee had created a reserve in assessment year 1986-87 by enhancing value of assets – Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1.53 crores from said reserve and credited it to profit and loss account – In assessment year 2000-01 assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 1.53 crores from book profit for calculating adjusted book profit under section 115JA – Assessing Officer allowed assessee’s claim
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
