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 Pune restored Section 147 reassessment, holding Section 153C was inapplicable as seized material did not directly pertain or ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of Section 68 and Section 69C additions as loans were supported by...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rejected the Section 80JJAA claim as it was not made in the return, remanded the Section 80G issue for verification, a...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad deleted most Section 68 additions after accepting documentary evidence, remanding only verification of ₹12.15 lak...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai restored the Section 32AC deduction claim for fresh verification and upheld restriction of Section 14A disallowance to...
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...
Principles for reckoning of limitation period for completion of block assessment under provisions of S 158 BE- conclusive proof is required to show that seized documents disclose concealment of any income but assessee and not disclosed – ITAT
(a) Paper Books must be legibly written or type-written in double space of printed. (b) Each paper filed should be certified as true copy by the party filing the same, or by his authorized representative. (c) Each paper should be indexed in such a manner as to give the brief description of the relevance of the document, with page numbers stating the authority before whom it was filed. (d) Xerox copy of a document should be legible.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that transfer pricing is not an exact science in which mathematical certainty is possible and some approximations cannot be ruled out. The case relates to transfer pricing of captive software development services rendered by an Indian subsidiary Mentor Graphics to its US-based overseas parent.
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.
