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 : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
Income Tax : The issue concerns massive backlog in ITAT caused by unfilled positions and delayed appointments. The intervention highlights that...
Income Tax : A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC after finding the political donation lacked genuineness. The rul...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that addition of alleged undisclosed income could not be sustained merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats withou...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that crucial JSK Server data, screenshots, and investigation records were never ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that a company engaged in publishing platforms, software solutions, and product development could not be compared...
Income Tax : Tribunal found the DRP’s order cryptic and lacking proper analysis on similarity of business activities between the assessee and...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has revised its hearing notice protocols. Physical notices will now be sent only once, with subsequent dates availa...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
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...
The AO compared per-location payments to different vendors to allege excessiveness. The Tribunal held that such comparisons lack statutory backing when parties are unrelated and services differ in nature and complexity.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The AO completed assessment under Section 144 after alleged non-compliance, but failed to prove valid service of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that absence of jurisdiction renders the entire proceedings null.
The PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
Registration was cancelled over doubts about a large NRI donation. The Tribunal held that receipt of donation alone does not constitute a specified violation without evidence of misuse or non-genuine activities.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years is impermissible where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Since the notice violated Section 151, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that since the assessment was legally correct when passed, invoking Section 154 after a later Supreme Court decision was impermissible. The addition was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal deleted ₹35.22 lakh added under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetisation. It held that audited books, recorded cash sales, and sufficient cash balance fully explained the deposits.
The Tribunal held that alleged on-money addition based solely on third-party loose papers is unsustainable. In absence of independent evidence linking the assessee to unaccounted payment, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking Section 68 on member deposits of a cooperative society was unjustified. Proper books, cash records, and member-wise details were ignored by the AO.
