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 : ITAT Special Bench held that omission of scrutiny category in a Section 143(2) notice is a procedural defect curable under Section...
Income Tax : ITAT held section 35D(2)(c) applies only to companies and upheld disallowance of REIT's claim for IPO and listing expense amortisa...
Income Tax : Article examines whether the MLI Principal Purpose Test has domestic effect under Section 90(1) following Nestlé SA and Sky High ...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the appeal after holding that mere upload of an order on the ITBA portal is not valid service under Sectio...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held Section 2(47)(v) inapplicable as the JDA did not satisfy Section 53A conditions, deleting capital gains for AY...
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 : ITAT Delhi deleted the section 69A addition of ₹33.50 lakh after holding the intercepted cash formed part of the disclosed prope...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted Section 270A penalty as notices lacked specific Section 270A(9) charge and the expenditure claim involved a deb...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored six Section 153A search assessment appeals to the AO, subject to ₹50,000 cost per appeal for repeated no...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted a Section 270A penalty as the notice and penalty order failed to specify the exact statutory limb of under-...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held disputed salary is taxable only if it became due and remanded the matter to verify the employment terms and em...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed rectification under Section 254(2), correcting factual errors and granting Section 54EC deduction of ₹1 crore ...
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...
whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,26,80,413/- on account of long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee instead of Jayantilal Oswal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Explore the ITAT Ahmedabad ruling in Sangitaben Doshi vs. ITO case. The order discusses the disallowance of LTCG on Kappac Pharma shares based on conjectures.
Jagdishbhai R. Patel Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT(A) upheld the penalty of Rs.19,50,000/-,levied u/s 271AAB of the Act @ 30% of the undisclosed income of Rs.65 lacs, noting that the assessee had failed to fulfill the following conditions by the specified date as required by the section : a) filing its return declaring the undisclosed […]
PAN of assessee should be cancelled by Income Tax department and credit for advance tax and TDS should be granted to assessee as per law.
Assessee found to be negligent, casual & noncompliant. So ITAT, refuse to condone inordinate delay of 789 days in filing appeal
If expenses are incurred for business, the same should be allowable as deduction and it is not necessary that expenditure may result in income or there must be substantial income.
Ramgopal Thirani Family Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We observe that the claim of assessee is that it is a Private Beneficiary Trust and thus, it was required to file its return of income on ITR-5, but inadvertently it filed ITR-7, which is meant for charitable trust claiming exemption(s). Before ld. CIT(A), it was submitted […]
Mahesh K. Bhutiya Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We have noted that the Revenue has accepted the income returned by the assessee from his business by applying 5% profit rate to his turnover of Rs. 20,85,825/-. It is evident therefore that it is an accepted fact that the assessee is a very small businessman and it […]
Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is an admitted position that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of one of its projects, namely, ‘Khinvasara Fort’. The AO did not dispute the otherwise allowability of deduction of income from the ‘Khinvasara Fort’ project, but observed that the assessee could not […]
HC after analyzing the provisions of section 48 and 112(1) of the Act has concluded that the assessee is entitled to avail the beneficial tax rate under section 112(1) of the Act.
