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 Pune sends case back to CIT(A) after hearing notices sent to registered email went unnoticed, leading to non-appearance by th...
Income Tax : ITAT restores case to CIT(A) as incorrect filing date led to faulty judgment in Emerald Mining Pvt. Ltd. tax dispute....
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT rules that the requirement of filing Form 10B is procedural, allowing Section 11 exemption for an educational trust des...
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 : 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...
M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Hyderabad) We have perused the order of the Tribunal and find that in Para 8 of the order, the Tribunal has considered the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 201(1) also to 201(1A) and has clearly held that sub section (3) refers only to an […]
Sh. Gurdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Smt. Harsharan Kaur was 73 years old lady at the relevant time. Therefore, she gave Power of Attorney to the assessee since she could not maintain the property. It was further submitted that within one year from the date of general Power of Attorney, the assessee gave the […]
Akshay Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 12 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that after receiving of the order of the ld. CIT (A) on 22.03.2018, assessee has duly handed over the same to his Chartered Accountant, Shri […]
Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Brief of assessee’s facts: 1. Beam India (the assessee), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beam USA, was engaged in the production and sale of alcoholic beverages in India. 2. During AY 2008-09, the assessee entered following ITs with its AE along with outcome […]
Ms Deekay Gears Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, in the course of proceedings before the first appellate authority the assessee had filed letter dated 19thSeptember 2017, seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Taking note of the said letter, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without deciding it on merit. Therefore, the issue which arises […]
Neelam Nananni Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Deduction under section 54 was available on purchase of new flats by assessee from long-term capital gain earned on sale of old asset even if investment was not made out of the proceeds of capital gain. Held: Assessee earned a long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable […]
Since assessee had duly filed revised return within the mandate of section 139(5), therefore, the same could not be treated as non est and claim of depreciation in revised return could not be denied on the ground that it was not claimed in original return and also, assessee was not required to seek condonation of delay in terms of section 119(2)(b).
In the present case, AO noticed investments made by assessee-company and invoked section 14A leading to disallowance whereas assessee claimed that no dividend income earned during the year under consideration. It was held since assessee-company did not have any dividend income and it had strategic investment therefore no disallowance under 14A could be made.
M/s. J.C. Bhalla & Co. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee-firm was entitled to claim deduction claim under Section 54EC as assessee had made an investment in the specified bonds and capital gain had arisen to the assessee from transfer of client relationship and goodwill which was long-term capital asset under section 2(14) chargeable […]
Retiring partners did not acquire any right in the revalued property and what they got on retirement was only money equivalent to enhanced portion of the assets re-valued which did not constitute capital asset under section 2(14) and payment of the said money by assessee-firm to retiring partners could not give rise to capital gain under section 45(4) read with section 2(14).
