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...
Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It was noticed by the AO that as per computation of income submitted by the assessee, income from LTCG of Rs.22,76,598/-had been claimed out of the sale of shares of Eco Friendly Food Processing Park Ltd. The AO called upon the assessee to substantiate the claim and […]
Held that M2M loss on SWAP contract was allowable where loans were converted into foreign currency loan to take benefit of low interest rate and loss recognized on account of foreign exchange fluctuation as per notified Accounting Standard 11 was an accrued and subsisting liability and not merely a contingent or hypothetical liability.
Held that as per the identical issue of disallowance of bought note purchases in cash u/s. 40A(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18 and after considering relevant facts, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for further verification.
Jyoti Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) being provision towards contribution to Approved Superannuation Fund for the purpose of determining liability of the assessee on account of Fringe Benefit Tax. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD This […]
Kamal Translifters Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Though the assessee’s claim that payment made to the Director, was for business expediency, but the assessee could not prove before us the nexus between the assessee-company with its subsidiary company in the nature of trade and business. Furthermore, Shri Kamal Deshraj Dogra being director of both the companies, […]
Tenovia Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Chennai) The assessee suffered business-loss during the year and claimed carry-forward of losses for Rs.57,69,223/-. However, CPC has reduced the same to Rs.63,849/-. This was due to the fact that the last date of filing return of income was 31.10.2019. However, the return was filed 12 minutes and […]
N.C. Rajagopal & Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the receipts have been offered on cash basis and therefore, TDS credit would be available as per Sec.199 of the Act i.e., in the year in which the respective receipts are offered to tax. In support, the assessee also filed […]
AO cannot make additions only on the basis of minimum income declared by the parties, because the income earned by person cannot decide quantum of loan that a person can give
DCIT Vs Medi Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) Issue– Disallowance by the AO by not allowing assessee’s claim holding that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 dated 01.08.2012 applies only to pharmaceutical manufacturers and not to distributors like the assessee. Upon careful consideration of material facts, it could be gathered that the assessee merely acts […]
Smt. Ashaba Rajendrasinh Vs CIT (ITAT Rajkot) Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the claim of the assessee observed that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the return of income for the year under consideration which he has failed to do. In that view of the matter the claim of deduction under section 54 has been […]
