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...
Held that addition of the amount of unsecured loan sustained as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan transactions except filing the affidavits.
Held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdictional powers
Held that the addition made on account of excess depreciation claimed, having been surrendered by the assessee itself without any prior detection by the Revenue, the excess claim having been demonstrated to have been made for bonafide reasons, it is surely not a case for levy of penalty at all.
Held that the expenditure incurred on mere registration of trade-mark is a revenue expenditure
DCIT Vs Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports India Pvt Ltd (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find that even though it is claimed by the Ld. AR that there was a technical error which prevented the assessee from filing/uploading the Form-10CCB along with return of income filed U/s. 139(1), the Ld. AR could not produce the Form-10CCB claimed […]
Term two years has been interpreted to mean that not during the whole period of two years, even if the land is used for some days in the earlier year, it would be sufficient for compliance of provisions of section 54B
Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
Sukhdev Singh Kang Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) it is the claim of the ld A.R, that as the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was undeniably vested with the Income Tax Officer, Nakodar, therefore, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara who had no jurisdiction over his case had clearly traversed beyond his jurisdiction and […]
DCIT Vs Sidhanath Enterprise (ITAT Rajkot) The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of cash deposits of Rs. 224.53,23,993/-. in the bank account of the assessee, noting that identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the assessee itself in a writ petition filed by the […]
Heera Kerala Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) After hearing the rival submissions we observe from the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act that there was an addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.71,66,000/-which has been set off from the returned loss […]
