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...
In the present case, as is evident from admitted facts, the notice was Under Section 16(1). It is a general notice on the assessee as if she made a gift which had escaped assessment. There is no reference or mention to alleged deemed gift made by her mother Smt. Gurcharan Kaur which the G.T.O. wished to assess.
The Assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80IB on profit from DEPB Scheme and the cross objection filed by the Assessee was dismissed. In regard to Duty Draw Back Scheme, it has held by the division bench of the ITAT, Delhi that the receipt was in lieu of expenses earlier incurred by payment of excise and customs duty. Therefore, the receipt was in the course of the business of the industrial undertaking. Accordingly, it was entitled to exemption u/s 80IB.
The question before the Tribunal was whether Service Tax paid on outward transport of goods can be taken credit as input service. The issue is too well known for any detailed elaboration. Straight to what the Tribunal had to say; In a lucid and analytical dissection matching mathematical precision, the Tribunal observed.
The learned D.R has vehemently contended before us that no assessee can be said to be providing telecommunication services unless such services are provided from one end to the other end. According to him, the assessee is operating as backbone industry and connect the calls received through other service providers and, therefore, does not provide any service to the actual user of the phone. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that legislature itself has allowed the deduction to telecommunication services through satellite or turnking network.
An Indian company engaged in computer software business set up a trading office in Japan. The company’s Japan branch suffered loss, which it claimed as deduction from profits earned in India. The assessing officer, however, held that since the profits of the trading office are taxable in Japan only, any loss incurred by the firm in respect of its trading office is not allowable as deduction from the income which is taxable in India.
Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of A.Y. 1997-98 on the basis of finding that the assessee had not paid tax on the income declared under VDIS, 97 and made the addition of income declared year-wise under VDIS as unexplained investment. It was held that the addition was not justified as the alleged investments were not made in the immediate preceding financial year to the assessment year under consideration.
YOU are liable to deduct TDS. By a mistaken understanding, you deduct less TDS than what was required to be deducted. However the deductee pays the correct Income Tax. Can the Department demand the TDS again from you? Logic would say, NO, but logic and tax don’t always go together and you need the Supreme Court to tell you that on the same income, you cannot levy tax twice.
TAXING a non-resident has always been challenging, and wherever possible the law has provided adequate safeguard for the Revenue. That is how Sec 163 came into being. The issue here is: If a non-resident is assessed independently, can its agent in India be also assessed as Representative Assessee for the same income u/s 163?
Sec.263 is the revisionary power of Commissioner which is to be invoked where the order of A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue but all errors and loss of revenue don’t allow for invocation of Sec.263 but in circumstances as discussed above. In case there are two views on an issue and A.O. takes one of the views leading to loss of revenue, it will not lead to an erroneous decision calling for invocation of Sec.263. The circumstances as laid out in the Malabar case is an important pointer and basis for action u/s 263.
The assessee’s contention that above income is to be assessed under the head other sources as he is not owner of the premises, is well taken and is required to be accepted. There is no question of estimating annual letting value of the property. It is to be assessed as per agreement between the parties under the head other sources. The Revenue authorities were not justified in assessing rental income under the head house property. On facts of the case, we direct the AO to take assessee’s rental income under the head other sources. The assessee would also be entitled to consequential relieves under the law. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accepted.
