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 : ITAT Special Bench held that omission of scrutiny category in a Section 143(2) notice is a procedural defect curable under Section...
Income Tax : ITAT held section 35D(2)(c) applies only to companies and upheld disallowance of REIT's claim for IPO and listing expense amortisa...
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 Bangalore restored the appeal after holding that mere upload of an order on the ITBA portal is not valid service under Sectio...
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 : ITAT Delhi deleted the section 69A addition of ₹33.50 lakh after holding the intercepted cash formed part of the disclosed prope...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted Section 270A penalty as notices lacked specific Section 270A(9) charge and the expenditure claim involved a deb...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored six Section 153A search assessment appeals to the AO, subject to ₹50,000 cost per appeal for repeated no...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted a Section 270A penalty as the notice and penalty order failed to specify the exact statutory limb of under-...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held disputed salary is taxable only if it became due and remanded the matter to verify the employment terms and em...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed rectification under Section 254(2), correcting factual errors and granting Section 54EC deduction of ₹1 crore ...
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...
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.
1.Whether deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amounts? The deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amount. 2.Whether Modvat Credit available to the assessee as on the last day of the previous year amounts to payment of Central Excise duty u/s. 43B?
The tax paid by the company was part and parcel of the salary and not any sum outside the salary or independent of salary. Thus, the tax liability of the assessee was nothing but the salary and not anything outside it. Therefore, this payment of tax on behalf of the assessee will be monetary payment. In view thereof, the provision contained in section 10(10CC) is not applicable for the reason that like salary, this payment is also a monetary payment forming part of the salary.
JCIT Vs Mukund Limited (ITAT Mumbai) – The consideration of Rs.2.04 crores paid by the assessee company for obtaining the leasehold rights from MIDC in favour of the assessee for a period of 99 years is capital in nature and therefore, not allowable as deduction to the assessee.
Explore the legal case of Aggarwal Mitra Mandal Trust vs. DIT (Exemption) (2007) 293 ITR (AT) 259 (Delhi) where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granted insights into the denial of registration under Section 12A. Understand the significance of the CIT’s role in assessing the genuineness of trust activities and objects, and how Section 13(1) applies during income computation. Get detailed analysis and key takeaways from this crucial legal precedent.
Explore a landmark Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case from Chennai where a penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act was successfully deleted. The tribunal found that the undisclosed income, as declared in the block return, remained the assessed income. Discover the rationale behind the tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the genuine nature of credits, the agricultural background of creditors, and the firm’s non-professional management. Learn how the tribunal concluded that the acceptance of cash loans was due to business exigencies, establishing a reasonable cause for the exemption from penalties. #IncomeTax #LegalCase #ChennaiTribunal
