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...
ITAT held considering the practical difficulties involved in furnishing the segmental details of AE transactions and non-AE transactions, penalty under Sec. 271G could not be justifiably imposed.
ITAT Ahmedabad upholds disallowance of Amay Pharma’s expenditure on gifts to doctors. Setback on c/f loss setoff. Latest SC ruling cited.
Held that tribunal in assessee’s co-owner case has taken holistic view in adoption of fair market value as DVO has himself stated in his report that the impugned land was situated at a more appropriate location as compared to sale instances considered by him.
Merely because assessment order is cryptic one without discussing in detail nature of enquiry conducted and evidences furnished by assessee, it cannot be said that order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue.
Overlooking the mandatory provision of law in the original assessment is apparent mistake of law which is rectifiable under section 154.
Ajaybhai I Gogia Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) From the fact of the case ITAT observed that there are conflicting judicial precedents on the issue under consideration and therefore, it may be inferred that the issue before us is one in which two views are possible. Further, we note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has […]
I hold that CPC has no jurisdiction of adjustment u/s. 143(1) on this issue where admittedly there were decisions in favour of the assessee from the Hon’ble High Courts
The admitted position in the present case is that the assessee did not file any valuation report to substantiate the fair market value of shares issued in terms of Sec.56(2)(viib) (a)(i) of the Act and Rule 11UA of the Rules.
When the issue-in-dispute was in respect of the receipt of loan and source of which was already available on record, it would not become undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, as source of the same, was already within the knowledge of the Income Tax Department.
Merely because one of the clauses of trust deed of assessee trust provided that trust could carry on other businesses as decided by trustees, it would not per se disentitle trust from being considered for registration under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.
