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...
Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs CPC (ITAT Delhi) 1. ITAT Delhi deletes addition made u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of contributions received from employees on account of ESI / EPF deposited beyond time specified in respective law but before the due date u/s 139(1). […]
Smt. Rontala Tirumala Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT finds that the statement of the M.D Shri Rontala Raji Reddy was recorded on 17.10.2014 i.e. a day after the survey on 16.10.2014 and the diaries impounded during the course of survey allegedly corroborated the statement. It is a settled position that no addition can be made […]
ITO Vs Ayesha Abid Ali (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in the hands of the assessee of interest income from an A/c with HSBC held by the assessee jointly with her husband which was opened by his employer to deposit his salary income. Therefore, it is not an […]
ACIT Vs V.V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) On perusal of the statement, AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of Rs. 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in […]
ACIT Vs. V. V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of ₹ 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in his wife’s name for […]
Sukhdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards the contention of notice not properly served by the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. As regards ground Nos. 8 to 13, the […]
Morgan Stanley Mauritius Co Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The reasoning given by the DRP is ex facie incorrect inasmuch as the SCB-India, being a permanent establishment of a company fiscally domiciled in the United Kingdom, and is not a taxable unit in India, and the taxability is in the name of its general enterprise- […]
The property was conveyed to assessee after the death of his father in 1955, i.e. before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1950. Accordingly, the property belonged to HUF of assessee and not to assessee-individual. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 147 for difference in sale consideration and fair market value of property itself was liable to be quashed.
Merely because assessee had not disclosed mode of payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same should not doubted especially when such salary to security guards came to Rs.27,000/- per month for four persons. Even, if the payment was made in cash, there would be no violation of section 40A(3).
Manoj Singhal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On going through the details, we find that the deduction claimed u/s 54F was Rs.6,12,10,100/- whereas the deduction eligible was Rs.6,11,19,500/-. Thus, there is a computational difference of Rs.90,600/- in the claim of deduction u/s 54F which could have been rectified u/s. 154. The provisions of section 263 need […]
