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 Mumbai dismisses income tax additions for AY 2014-15, stating reliance on a generalized report without independent inquiry is...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholds CIT(A) decision to delete addition of interest income from fixed deposits in Evita...
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 : 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...
It is apparent that when the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the impugned transaction before the Assessing Officer that it decided to surrender an amount of Rs. 55 lakh. Thus, the factual matrix indicates that the assessee made the surrender when it had no explanation to offer. Thus, the assessee could not prove the bona fide of its claim.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-V, Hyderabad, dated 31/08/2016 confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dated 4.3.2015.
Where AO failed to record his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under which limb, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee, being essential condition was not fulfilled, penalty was liable to be deleted.
Where assessee did not furnish any evidence of earning agricultural income shown in return of income merely because assessee was holding agricultural land of 20 bighas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so as to make any investment in the property.
Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word may not shall. May cannot be equated with shall especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word may in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made default under said provision. Therefore we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary.
ITO Vs Adhikar (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of Micro Finance. The Assessing Officer considered the same as non-charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that the activities were carried out on commercial lines. […]
Krishna N Bhojwani, Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) While calculating annual value of the let out property, maintenance charges paid to the society by the assessee is admissible deduction from the annual let out value under section 23(1)(b). Hence, disallowance made by AO was not justified. FULL TEXT OF ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: The captioned […]
Wind World India Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee contended that wind turbine generators were used for generation of electricity, which is akin to manufacturing of an article or thing as the electricity is intangible and its effect can be seen and felt, transferred, delivered, stored, processed, etc. It was, thus submitted […]
This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 03-09-2011 passed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21-12-2010 and is filed on the following grounds
ACIT v. Shrey Sharma Guleri (ITAT Mumbai) The argument of the learned D.R. is that the basement in the house cannot be termed as a residential house within the provisions of section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It was pleaded that basement is part and parcel of the residential unit, therefore, it cannot be termed as a separate unit.
