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...
Approval under section 80G sought for by the assessee cannot be subjected to any condition as there is an inbuilt mechanism to be complied with by assessee after getting registration/approval under section 12AA and 80G
Mahesh Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that a co-operative bank/ assessee has no liability to deduct TDS on interest payments made to members. We thus delete the impugned section 194A r.w.s. 40 (a)(ia) disallowance of Rs. 2,00,095/- in very terms therefore. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE 1. […]
DCIT Vs Reliance Industrial Holdings Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In the cases of the reopened assessments first and foremost one has to see the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as these are the reasons which give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer for initiating, and proceedings with, the reassessment. The reasons so recorded must meet […]
Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs DCIT/ACIT/ITO (ITAT Allahabad) In this case assessee has not only replied the notice but also replied to the letter issued by AO. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) on 28th December, 2019. Once the assessee has made the compliance though […]
Super Sales India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Assessee has purchased windmill and capitalized the same in its books of accounts. The assessee purchased this machinery indigenously and hence, provisions of section 43A will not apply. But, since the assessee has capitalized and claimed depreciation in spread over years and assessments have become final and […]
Sikandar And Company Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) AO has to power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from other assessment. Further, there must be reasons recorded showing live link with the formation of the belief that there is escapement of income from assessment. […]
Admittedly, the AO deployed Inspector to verify whether there is any construction/residential house constructed by the assessee. The Inspector submitted report on 19-12-2016 stating that no construction or residential house is existing at House No. 4, Ward No. 12, Ichalkaranji which clearly establishes the assessee could not construct a house within three years from the date of sale of its assets on 17-03-2011 till 19-12-2016. Therefore, the assessee made construction within three years and in my opinion, the AO rightly denied deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
Ruikar Trust Vs ACIT (CPC) (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in the return of income. The CPC, Bangalore denied the said exemption for non-filing of Form 10 within time. Having aggrieved, the assessee challenged the […]
ITAT Delhi held that as receipt of an interest subsidy received under the scheme is not income at all and hence the same has to be excluded while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
It is to be presumed that the assessee made investments from its own funds but not from borrowed funds. If that is the case the disallowance under interest is not warranted. Therefore, disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) to an extent of Rs. 1,78,490/- is not maintainable.
