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 Bangalore held that disallowance of agricultural expenses based on estimation is unsustainable without concrete evidence, rul...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied solely due to missing bills or vouchers, emphasizing the principle of...
Income Tax : Learn about how the holding period of property impacts Capital Gain tax, including ITAT's recent decision clarifying calculations ...
Income Tax : Explore key updates on recent income tax case laws, covering international taxation, business income, and capital gains. Essential...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of a significant Delhi ITAT ruling on cash sales pre-demonetization. Learn how it affects taxation and f...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : Supreme Court of India has recently issued an order requiring all revenue appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ...
Income Tax : At present appeals are fixed in routine and may take one to two years period even for first hearing. it is humbly submitted that t...
Income Tax : CBI Registers a Case against Accountant Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the Allegations of Possessing Disproportio...
Income Tax : Law Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad launches 'itat e-dwar', an e-filing portal of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Portal will ena...
Income Tax : n Legal Initiative For Forest And Environment (LIFE Trust) Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi), the stay application was denied as the test for i...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of inc...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that construction of new dwelling unit on first floor is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Income ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai grants relief to Tarun Mohan Jani, ruling that property valuation difference within 10% tolerance limit doesn't warran...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO must record a proper satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim before inv...
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...
Income Tax : Office Order No. 08 of 2021 Post facto approval of the Competent Authority is hereby conveyed for extension of term of ad-hoc appo...
Income Tax : In continuation of the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) dated 01.06.2020 the hearing of cases at 'ITAT Chandigarh Benches from 0...
We are of the view that since the issue raised in the show-cause notice has already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in detail by conducting adequate enquiry calling for material evidence and other documents supporting the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act, proper application of mind and taken a plausible view in light of the settled judicial precedence as referred by the ld. counsel for the assessee, there remains no scope for the ld. PCIT to invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.
AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income.
DCIT Vs Agya Ram Manohar Lal (ITAT Chandigarh) Facts- The brief facts of the case for AY 2016- 17 are that the assessee firm derives income from business and income from other sources. The assessee firm belongs to M/s Roop Square Group of companies where a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) was conducted on […]
The law is well settled that for exercising power u/s 263 twin conditions are required to be satisfied – (i) that the order should be erroneous and; and (ii) it should cause prejudice to the interests of Revenue. Moreover, it is not the case where the assessee failed to substantiate his claim, rather the explanation along with supporting evidences were placed before the assessing officer and the learned Pr.CIT.
Gourishankar Girdharilal Lohiya (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s order dated 17.02.2020 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/199/2011-12 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. I straightway advert to the assessee’s […]
The CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payments towards electricity, water supply, security, lift maintenance etc., falling within the meaning of section 194C whereby these charges are paid for carrying out the work for maintenance of the common area that are available along with the lease premises.
ITO (Exemption) Vs Innovative Welfare and Educational Society (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The Assessee had filed its ROI on dated 31.03.2006 by declaring Nil income which was processed and resulting into passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on dated 21-09-2007. Later on it came to the knowledge of the AO that the […]
TPO /DRP in their order has expressed an inability to compute the ALP using CUP due to a lack of information in the public domain. Given the difficulty / impossibility in computing ALP using CUP and considering the close nexus between the manufacturing activity and payment of management / license fees, the method to be adopted for benchmarking the above international transactions by the assessee ought to be TNMM.
We observed that the exemption was claimed U/s 54F of the Act on this account is Rs. 6,33,190/-. It is further noticed that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the purchase of new house in the name of wife of the assessee though the claim was denied by the AO.
When the assessee’s main dominant and prime objective was to promote the sports was not desire to earn profits but, object of promoting sports for Nation, it was clearly a charitable purpose. Assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11.
