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 ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab in...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that notional rent cannot be taxed under “Income from Other Sources” without evidence that such income wa...
Income Tax : Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had wrongly recharacterised Boeing India Defense Private Limited as a full-risk service provider ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC after finding the political donation lacked genuineness. The rul...
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 Tribunal examined whether cost of acquisition could be fixed on assumptions. It held that government-notified MVR rates must be considered and ad-hoc estimates cannot replace statutory valuation methods.
ITAT Hyderabad held that limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be only 3 years from the end of the assessment year since material suggesting escapement is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond period of limitation of three years hence quashed.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
Authorities taxed refund interest as business income by linking it to earlier PE years. The Tribunal ruled that without a PE in the year of receipt, the income cannot be treated as effectively connected and must enjoy DTAA relief.
The Tribunal emphasized that exemption cannot be denied on assumptions. It restored the case to the AO for limited verification, reinforcing evidence-based assessment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that prior withdrawals from the bank sufficiently explained the deposits, warranting deletion of the addition.
The tribunal refused to admit a fresh legal challenge to reassessment raised for the first time. However, it remanded the revenue-difference addition for fresh adjudication due to natural justice concerns.
The case addressed whether an authority can reject registration before completion of parallel statutory processes. The Tribunal held that hurried rejection was unjustified and directed de novo adjudication.
Payments made pursuant to allotment confer valuable property rights. Their relinquishment through an agreement to sell amounts to a statutory transfer, entitling the assessee to compute gains or losses under capital gains.
The tribunal ruled that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales and bank withdrawals were genuine. It held that partial, ad-hoc additions without rejecting books of account are unsustainable.
