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 Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. P...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for de...
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 : 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...
DCIT Vs J. P. Iscon Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee had given inter-corporate deposit to six subsidiaries companies namely Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Dhwani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rich Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Palitana Sugars Mills […]
SBW Udyog Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Allahabad) Deduction allowed for belated payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI, which is deposited beyond the due date stipulated under the relevant statutes governing PF/ESI, but the same stood deposited before the due date for filing of return of income. Facts- The assessee filed its return of income u/s. […]
Once bogus purchases had gone into profit and loss account, and sales were not doubted, only option left with AO was to make addition of gross profit embedded in bogus purchases. Accordingly, AO was directed to restrict addition to the extent of 9.25% of impugned purchases as assessee had shown gross profit ratio of 9.25% in the year ending March, 2012.
Dhanesh Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case Assessee by mistake not claimed deduction u/s. 57(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. @ 50% of interest on compensation that was received by Assessee on acquisition of his agricultural land by Land Collector. ITAT held that mistake, was in the nature of a mistake […]
Dr. B. Lal Clinical Laboratory Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, the ld D/R […]
Madhavi Raksha Sankalpa Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT noticed that the CIT(Exemptions) has passed the order on 31.08.2020 during the pandemic period without hearing the appellant. It is against the principles of natural justice. A proper and reasonable opportunity is liable to be given to the appellant in accordance with law, therefore, in the […]
Where the legality and validity of the agreement was under challenge, there was no infirmity into the order of CIT(A) to the extent it was held that the transfer of shares could not be subjected to capital gain tax in the year under consideration on the ground that the entire transaction had not fructified.
Unsecured loan– It is seen that merely because the Lender Company had substantial funds through borrowings, AO suspected the Assessee to have created layers of intermediaries to bring in Unaccounted money, and on the basis of such suspicion, drew adverse conclusion against the genuineness of the Unsecured Loan and treated it as Unexplained merely on the basis of such suspicion.
Interest on income tax refund received by the non-resident companies shall be taxable as per the provision of Tax Treaty irrespective of the fact that whether the assessee has PE in India or not.
Godha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, it is not the case of the AO that the provisions of sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the impugned transaction. In fact, it is the submission of the assessee that the possession was never given to Shri […]
