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...
Cushman & Wakefield Property Management Services India Pvt. Ltd.,Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the quantum appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal. Thus, the addition, on which penalty has been imposed by the Revenue does not […]
Any order of the subordinate authority which could have been considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in allowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, was the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and not the re-assessment order. PCIT had proceeded to revise the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 to get over the hurdle of limitation which was impermissible.
ITO Vs Shri Udaykumar D. Bhatt (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 271(1)(c) cast responsibility upon the AO to reach the clear finding with respect to levy of penalty under the specific charge and if the AO fails to do so then the penalty cannot be levied as such penalty order shall not be maintainable in the eyes […]
ACIT Vs Krishan Lal Madhok (ITAT Delhi) A.C.I.T. on the basis of information received from the Government of France under the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention wrongfully assumed that Shri Krishan Lal Madhok was earning an interest at the rate of 4% from his foreign Swiss Bank account, thereby included the same in his income while […]
Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has sold software products and also received income for providing support services. He submitted that providing ancillary support services is also related to sale of software products only. He submitted that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics […]
DCIT Vs Board of Cricket Control in India (ITAT Mumbai) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has challenged correctness of the order dated January 09, 2019 passed by CIT(A) quashing the reassessment order passed by the Appellant without issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), for the assessment year […]
DIRECT TAXES UPDATES Recent circulars/ notifications/ rules/ clarifications/News ♦ CBDT Notified Income Tax Rule 8AC so as to provide for computation of short term capital gains and written down value u/s 50 where depreciation on goodwill is received. (Notification No. 77/2021-Income Tax [G.S.R. 472(E)]qvc) ♦ CBDT further extends the timeline for e-filing of Form 15CA/ […]
Inflow Technologies Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee, as a part of share purchase agreement, during the business structuring had given a corporate guarantee to one of its group supplier CISCO for supplies made to its AE (Inflow Singapore). According to the assessee, it did not intend to get any remuneration for the […]
Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (LTU) (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee did not object to inclusion of this company before the TPO but objected to inclusion of this company before DRP. The DRP did not adjudicate the objection. In these circumstances, we are of the view that exclusion of this company from the […]
ITAT- Held that, benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the IT Act cannot be denied to the Respondent merely on the ground that conveyance deed has not yet been got registered particularly when the Respondent is proved to be in possession of the property in question out of which the Respondent was already owner in possession of 1/3rd share since 2008 after making a complete payment of the sale consideration to the vendors and has duly proved possession over the property by way of electricity and water charges bills.
