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 : ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey num...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that CPC cannot suo motu reclassify an apartment owners association as a co-operative society while processing...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that an appeal dismissed ex-parte by NFAC should still be decided on merits under Section 250 of the Income Tax Ac...
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 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...
Lufthansa German Airlines Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The question is whether the User Development Fee (UDF) collection charges paid by AAI to the Lufthansa German Airlines (Assessee) is income derived from operation of aircraft not liable to tax in India as per Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany. As the effective management of […]
ITAT Held that sales tax subsidy is capital receipt mistakenly offered by the assessee as income is mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, appropriate relief/ refund available to assessee.
Jeyaraman Senthil Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT CHENNAI) On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given several opportunities and the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control being COVID-19 pandemic period. Hence, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be […]
Mohideen Sharif Inayathulla Sharif Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Ground- The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai failed to independently apply his mind that the village in which this land is situated is more than 5 kilometers from the nearest municipal limits. A mere misstatement or confusion with regard to the identical name of 2 villages […]
Sh. Sanjay Jain Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the present set of cases, AO asked the assessees to furnish the relevant details relating to Long Term Capital Gain, Short Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents […]
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Banagalore) Ld. TPO thus applied the TNMM as the MAM and determined ALP which resulted in adjustment of Rs. 10,19,77,372/- to the Manufacturing Segment. The assessee filed objection before the DRP agains the proposed adjustment. However the DRP upheld the order of Ld. TPO by observing that in […]
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The submissions of Ld. AR are that warranty expenditure is part of overall sales obligations and the expenditure is reimbursed on actual basis. The warranty obligation being part and parcel of sales transactions and therefore, the same could not be held to be ‘fees for technical […]
ACIT Vs Parsons Brinckershoff India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) We find the JCIT in the instant case levied penalty of Rs.98,92,242/- u/s 271C on the ground that the assessee has not deducted TDS on certain expenses for which provision of Rs.9,92,66459/- was created in its books of account. We find the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the […]
Shanmugar Services Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) As per the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act, any person responsible for making payment for any services needs to deduct TDS on such payment at the prescribed rate. From the plain reading of Sec.194C of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the person who makes payment is […]
P. Divagar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) n the present case, the only issue for consideration is whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is valid or not. For the sake of convenience, the reasons recorded and communicated to the assessee are reproduced as under: “The assessee filed his return of income […]
