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 : ITAT Delhi ruled that penalties for income misreporting cannot be imposed if there's no malafide intention. Pranav Vikas India Pvt...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai upholds moratorium under IBC, barring legal proceedings against Mercator Ltd during liquidation. Appeals dismissed in ...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad directs CIT(E) to reconsider Idam Braahmam Society's 12AB registration application after secretary's resignation ca...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad remands Metro Heritage Pvt Ltd's case back to CIT(A) due to COVID disruptions and a hotel fire, allowing a fresh op...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad remands the Vidhyanagar Jain Society's registration case to CIT(E) for reconsideration due to non-submission of doc...
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...
DCIT Vs Sovereign Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) A bare perusal of reasons for reopening would show that the Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 148 r.w.s. 147 after the expiry of four years to cover up his own follies. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has […]
Where assessee placed sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. to prove genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares such as copies of bank statement, Demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., and no material had been brought on record against assessee to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be sustained.
Chandu Laxman Chavan Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) While levying penalty, the Assessing Officer invoked only the charge of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident that while recording satisfaction the Assessing Officer was not clear in his mind as to which charge u/s. 271(1) (c) is to be invoked for initiating penalty. The ambiguity […]
Whether the penalty levied by CIT(A) u/s 272A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? Penalty u/s 272A is not justified for Assessee having exempt income u/s 10(23C).
Where amount received by assessee in excess of advance was on account of compensation for extinction of its right to sue the owner, the receipt was a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
Assessee was in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property was not the exclusive business of assessee, therefore, the rental income earned by assessee was rightly treated as income under the head ‘House Property’ instead of ‘business income’.
Assessee had developed shopping mall on a property owned by it and by providing host of services/facilities amenities in the said mall and as such, basic intention of assessee was commercial exploitation of its property by developing it as shopping malls, therefore, income earned by assessee from letting out various shops/stalls in shopping malls constructed by it had to be treated as business income and not as income from house property.
Expenses on medical camps organized with tea and snacks, ball pens, purchased for distribution to Doctors and Hospitals, with logo of the assessee company, organizing cardiac camps, Doctors meetings for various products for awareness of their product were only on account of business promotion expenses which were allowable under the provisions of section 37 the I.T. Act.
Assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be held as bogus on the ground of information from Investigation Wing in case assessee had filed evidences like transaction statement of stock broker, contract notes transactions statement of Demat acount, statement of account from brokers, and bank statement, etc., to prove genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares.
Amount paid to foreign lawyer by assessee for representing its case before foreign court was not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) in India as legal services could not be treated as FTS as it was a professional services which was outside the scope of Section 9(1)(vii).
