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 Mumbai ITAT held that the appellate authority failed to consider pending writ petitions and interim directions of the Bombay H...
Income Tax : The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271AAC cannot survive once the underlying Section 153C assessment is quashed. The Tribu...
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...
Smt. Taraben Jayantilal Patel Vs DCIT-CPC (ITAT Ahmedabad) The appellant has computed ‘income from house property’ excluding of service tax whereas in Form 26AS it is inclusive of service tax. The order dated 06.08.2019 upon rectification under Section 154 of the Act, the income under the head ‘income from house property’ was computed at Rs.37,12,839/- […]
It is held that the cut of date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR would be of no relevance. It is also held that what is to be seen is that the assessee was indulged on R & D activity and had incurred expenditure thereupon and once a certificate by DSIR is issued that would be sufficient to hold that the assessee fulfill the conditions laid down in the aforesaid provisions.
Devaraj Construction Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In this case the reason for the delay in filing the appeal was that Shri S. Muthiah, F.C.A. died on 02.03.2015 and because of that there is no coordination between the assessee and the C.A. firm. The appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 28.12.2017. The assessee knows […]
Once, it is established that these payments are for construction contract and particularly the AO has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act.
Narender Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits in the bank account by stating that it was out of gift received from his grand-father Shri Phool Singh. The Assessing Officer, however, has rejected assessee’s claim as the notice issued under Section 133(6) […]
ITAT Mumbai held that a Keyman Insurance Policy provides for an insurance policy taken by a business organisation on the life of an employee and hence allowable as business expenditure.
Bulldog Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Appeals) (ITAT Mumbai) We observed that assessee has disclosed the total figure of income in A.Y. 2018-19 itself but because of some problem at the end of deductor is not able to claim the full amount of TDS on income declared. Assessee claimed TDS of Rs. 10,14,722/-against […]
P.S. Jayaraman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count. However, the provisions of Sec. 54EC were clear that the investment in a financial year was not […]
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On appraisal of the evidences placed before us, we find that vide notice dated 10.08.2018 specific queries were raised by the AO in relation to the issue raised for the purposes of limited scrutiny, i.e., ‘Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period’. In response, the assessee has […]
Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe from the order of the AO that the assessee has received cash more than 2.00/- Lakh from the four parties on different dates. As per the opinion of the AO the assessee has violated the provision of section 269ST, therefore, he imposed the […]
