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...
Kimiyoshi Muto Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has shown perquisite under rent-free accommodation by considering only the Indian salary whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, he was required to compute perquisite value of rent-free accommodation by including […]
Onus was on Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search ‘belongs’ to the Assessee, in other words, it was not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either ‘pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that ‘relates to the Assessee.
Interest was payable under Section 234C on default in payment of advance tax installment on returned income, and not on assessed income.
Once an assessee discharged its burden, then burden shifts to AO to prove otherwise that said transaction was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, AO had not brought on record any evidence to prove that said sum was undisclosed income of assessee. Therefore, AO was completely erred in making additions towards unsecured loans received from three companies of assessee group.
Jayesh Shantilal Vira Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Addition u/s 10(38) on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) deleted where no further verification made by AO except solely reliance on information from investigation wing. ITAT held that the long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. is not […]
Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee has filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.32,01,050/-which was processed by the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) and assessed at Rs.37,66,259/-. In the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the ld.AO has taken the income of Rs.37,66,259/- assessed under section 143(1) by the CPC […]
Recent circulars/ notifications/ rules/ clarifications/News ♦ Furnishing & upload of Form No. 34BB on Income Tax E-filling Portal (Notification No. 05 of 2021-Income Tax 24/05/2021) ♦ CBDT notifies Rule 11UAE Computation of Fair Market Value of Capital Assets for the purposes of section 50B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Notification No.68/2021 [G.S.R. 338(E)] 24/05/2021) ♦ CBDT […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling on Anusmriti Sarkar vs ITO case. Analysis of LTCG from Kailash Auto Finance Scrip, added without independent verification. Get insights into key decisions.
In present facts of the case, there were issues pertaining to disallowance under Section 40A(3); disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D; short deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia); undisclosed sales/difference in stock valuations and deduction u/s 80IB (11A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these issues have gone into the favour of the Appellant/ Assessee, most of them were covered by the Assessee’s own previous case serving best precedents.
Vodafone India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Where assesse engaged in business of providing mobile telephone services, sold prepaid vouchers to its distributors at a rate lower than its face value, difference between face value and selling price of prepaid voucher could not be regarded as commission requiring deduction of tax at source under section […]
