Category: ITAT

In a recent judgment, Ahmedabad ITAT quashed disallowance for excessive directors remuneration stating that section 40A(2)(b) disallowance is not to be invoked when the payees already stand assessed at maximum rate. Case law Details: ITA 857/Ahd/2012 Assessment year 2008-09  ACIT vs. M/s. Patel Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd Date of Judgment/Order: 08/04/2016 Brief facts …

In a latest judgment, ITAT Chandigarh has held that notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 served upon by affixture at a wrong address and consequent re-assessment made under section 147/148 cannot be held to be valid. Case Details: I T A No s . 335 & 336/ CHD/2015 Assessment …

In a latest judgment, ITAT Delhi has held that post office is not an agent of the assessee. Notice u/s 143(2) dispatched to post office on the last date of limitation period  can not be deemed to be the date of service of notice to the assessee. Case Law Details: …

In a recent judgment, ITAT Delhi following Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd case  has granted stay beyond 365 days in a re-fixed appeal for clarification, holding that the  delay was not attributable to the assessee. Case Law Details: S.A.-211/Del/2016 (In ITA No.-1681/Del/2015) AY: 2010-11 D.E.Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT …

Merely writing yes/approved and affixing signature by CIT is not proper satisfaction for a fit case for re-opening u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 Merely writing “yes” or “approved” and affixing signature by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was not the required/proper satisfied for a fit case …

In a latest judgment, ITAT Chennai has quashed penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment holding that  there is a difference in “facts not proved” and “facts disproved” and penalty can be levied only for the latter. Case Law Details: ITA No.1730/Mds./2015 Assessment Year :2010-11 Mr.R.A.Palanisamy vs. Income Tax Officer Date of …

In a latest judgment, ITAT Chennai has upheld that allowing set off of business loss from the unexplained cash credits u/s 68 not permissible in view of harmonious and combined reading of  sections 71 , 72 and 32(2). Case Law Details: I.T.A.No.325/Mds./2015 vs. Assessment Year :2006-07 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax …

In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that the assessee is not entitled to additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the machineries acquired in earlier year than the relevant financial year as there is no provision for postponement or carry forward of the residual …

In a recent judgment, ITAT Mumbai has opined that merely because an income has been taxed in the hands of recipient , does not mean that it is a deductible expenditure in the hands of the person making the payment instead the deduction is required to be examined …

“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred” ITAT quotes Apex Court observation while condoning delay of seven days in filing appeal before CIT(A). Case Details: ITA No. 435,436,437 & 438/JP/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2009-10 …