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 dispute involved additions made despite small variations between agreement value and stamp duty value. The Tribunal ruled that differences within 10% are immune from Section 43CA, granting relief for genuine transactions.
The ruling clarifies that CSR-related disallowance under Section 37(1) applies only from AY 2015-16 onwards. For earlier years, expenses with a business nexus remain deductible.
The issue was whether CBDT jewellery instructions could shield bullion found during a search from taxation. The Tribunal held that the instruction applies only to jewellery, not bullion, and upheld the Section 69A addition.
The issue was whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by audited books, sales records, and accepted VAT returns, no addition can survive.
The issue was whether a short delay in registering the new house defeats Section 54 relief. The Tribunal held that substantial compliance within the prescribed period is sufficient and allowed the exemption in full.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a survey statement, without corroborative evidence, are unsustainable. Development expenses were largely allowed, with only a reasonable estimated disallowance retained.
The issue was whether bank cash deposits could be treated as unexplained despite accepted cash advances. The Tribunal held that telescoping applies, deleting additions to avoid double taxation of the same source.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held to be business receipts already recorded as sales in audited books. The tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 amounts to double taxation.
The Revenue challenged the appellate authoritys decision to remand an ex-parte order. The Tribunal ruled that the remand was lawful and well within statutory appellate powers.
The ruling clarifies that denial of charitable exemption for delayed Form 10B goes beyond Section 143(1). If verification is needed, it cannot be resolved through mechanical processing adjustments.
