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...
Explore the ITAT Ahmedabad ruling in Sangitaben Doshi vs. ITO case. The order discusses the disallowance of LTCG on Kappac Pharma shares based on conjectures.
Jagdishbhai R. Patel Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT(A) upheld the penalty of Rs.19,50,000/-,levied u/s 271AAB of the Act @ 30% of the undisclosed income of Rs.65 lacs, noting that the assessee had failed to fulfill the following conditions by the specified date as required by the section : a) filing its return declaring the undisclosed […]
PAN of assessee should be cancelled by Income Tax department and credit for advance tax and TDS should be granted to assessee as per law.
Assessee found to be negligent, casual & noncompliant. So ITAT, refuse to condone inordinate delay of 789 days in filing appeal
If expenses are incurred for business, the same should be allowable as deduction and it is not necessary that expenditure may result in income or there must be substantial income.
Ramgopal Thirani Family Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We observe that the claim of assessee is that it is a Private Beneficiary Trust and thus, it was required to file its return of income on ITR-5, but inadvertently it filed ITR-7, which is meant for charitable trust claiming exemption(s). Before ld. CIT(A), it was submitted […]
Mahesh K. Bhutiya Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We have noted that the Revenue has accepted the income returned by the assessee from his business by applying 5% profit rate to his turnover of Rs. 20,85,825/-. It is evident therefore that it is an accepted fact that the assessee is a very small businessman and it […]
Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is an admitted position that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of one of its projects, namely, ‘Khinvasara Fort’. The AO did not dispute the otherwise allowability of deduction of income from the ‘Khinvasara Fort’ project, but observed that the assessee could not […]
HC after analyzing the provisions of section 48 and 112(1) of the Act has concluded that the assessee is entitled to avail the beneficial tax rate under section 112(1) of the Act.
Venkatesharaiyer Subramanian Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) There could be no quarrel on the fact that post-amendment to Sec. 54F, as applicable from AY 2015-16, deduction u/s 54F could not be claimed on purchase / construction of more than one residential house. However, the factual matrix would reveal that the assessee has made investment in one […]
