ITAT Judgments | ITAT Judgment contain Income Tax related Judgments from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Across India which includes ITAT Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkutta, Hyderabad etc.

Mrs. A. Vijayakumari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The provisions of section 54 of the Act are beneficial and are to be considered liberally for reasonable bonafide cause but investment in residential property is mandatory which is not in dispute in this case. The Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the case law relied on […]...

Where assessee-society was engaged in activity of finance business and was also engaged in activity of granting loans to general public as well, it could not be termed as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members, hence assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80P....

Shri Vijay Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the Assessing Officer while making the impugned additions has exceeded his jurisdiction. That the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny issue i.e. regarding security transaction. The Assessing Officer could not find a...

Where corpus donation could not be verified as donor was not co-operating in providing details, it was rightly treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68....

Mr. Satyender Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that assessee is owner of the Car. The assessee explained that car is sold for cash of Rs.3,21,900/- to Shri Parvender Singh who has executed an affidavit in favour of the assessee, confirming the purchase of the Car. The A.O. did not examine […]...

Where assessee's main objects were acquiring, constructing, operating and maintaining of multiplexes, business centres, etc., income derived from such activities was to be treated as business income and not income from house property....

Suman Poddar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry receipts in the form of long-term capital gains. The assessee has failed to prove that the share transactions are genuine and […]...

Taking into account the amount mentioned in Form 26AS it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was restricted to the tax sought to be evaded on the amount of commission income not disclosed by assessee....

Additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed has been accepted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, leading to substantial question of law. Thus when Hon’ble High Court admitted substantial question of law on additions, it becomes apparent that issue is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied under secti...

Adani Enterprise Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) We notice that no time limit has been prescribed for passing order under s.206C of the Act. The CIT(A) has assumed that in the absence of statutory time limit provided, the provisions of Section 201(3) of the Act providing time limit for deduction of tax at source can […]...