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...
Assessee was neither entitled to deduction under section 80P(2Xd) nor under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income earned from investments with Cooperative Banks such interest income was to be assessed as income from other sources.
DCIT Vs Ambuja Neotia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT find that the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) dated 13.08.2015 has been issued in a mechanical manner and in standard format without mentioning one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. In other words, the notice mentioned […]
Rajdhani Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Amritsar) In this case Section 263 order was passed only on the basis of the non-appearance of assessee and non submission of the document during the proceeding. Section 263 is moved up by two limbs, one erroneous order and second is prejudicial to the interest of the […]
Tega Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Assessee has contended that disallowance under section 14A ought not to have been considered for computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act, we find merit in the assessee’s contention. Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT –vs.- Vireet Investment Pvt. Limited (165 […]
Assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5,000 for failure to file return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148.
DCIT Vs Kingfisher Capital CLO. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) At the very outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench that respondent-assessee company has since been liquidated by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCALT) vide order dated 07.11.2019 and as such no longer in existence. In view of the matter, we are of […]
Share India Vs CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) A careful examination of clause (1)(b)(ii) of section 12AA, cited above, clearly indicates that the Ld. CIT(E) shall refuse registration only if he is not satisfied about the objects and the genuineness of the activities of the institution. A perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) demonstrates […]
CIT (E) was not right in passing the impugned revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice alleging the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing the AO to redo the assessment without making an enquiry himself.
ITO Vs Kanubhai M. Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) Pune Tribunal in the case of Dilip Battu Karanjule v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 12 (Pune – Trib.) held that where assessee identified land on behalf of existing and known persons and entire money towards purchase of land had been financed by such persons to whom land was ultimately […]
Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the Tribunal in the case of The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd., supra, has considered the issue of applicability of provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding […]
