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...
CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not granting an opportunity to the appellant bank to present the case through the video conferencing as specified under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020
Sneh Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As per the AO, the assessee has not filed return of income and hence notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued owing to cash transactions exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-. The AO held that the assessee has not given any details with regard to the […]
As per section 246A of the Act, the assessee has a right to file an appeal before CIT(A) against the intimation under section 200A of Act.
S.K. Agarwal (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that during the AY 2015-16, the assessee HUF sold a plot of land and earned capital gain which it claimed exempt under section 54F as the assessee purchased a residential house. The only cause of denial of exemption by the Revenue is that […]
AO has made addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, towards difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property as unexplained investment.
Assessee has assigned reasons for condoning delay is that, Assessment order been misplaced by Advocate & not handed over the same to assessee
DCIT Vs Shree Swaminarayan Infrastructure Private Limited (ITAT Rajkot) In this case, assessee company has issued shares of Rs.2,92,00,000/-being 7300 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.3990/- per share and thus there is increase in share capital of Rs.73,000/-. Over and above that the company has collected premium of Rs.2,91,27,000/-. Before the […]
Home Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) On perusal of the agreement, it was observed that the assessee paid Rs.36,09,000/- being compensation paid to land-owners, for allotting less than agreed constructed area, as per development agreement. The AO asked the assessee to submit the supporting documentary evidences viz., confirmation from the parties, books of accounts of their parties […]
Held that imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) justified as necessary record impounded by the department was not supplied to the assessee, accordingly assessee failed to comply with the notice u/s. 142(1).
No Addition of Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Period under section 69A If Cash Deposit Is Part of Receipts Shown on Presumptive Basis and When the Part of Cash Deposit in Pre Demonetisation-Period Was Accepted.
