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...
Simar Kaur Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) It is seen that the assessee has consistently maintained its challenge that notice was not issued as it has not been served. The tax authorities have rejected the challenge holding that non-receipt is not equivalent to non-service. It is seen that though the challenge is recorded the wording in […]
Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) From the reasons it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not specific as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of 1 crore has escaped assessment. In fact, in one para […]
Galaxy Surfactants Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Once an Assessing Officer prepares a draft assessment order, that is the end of his domain of powers so far as framing of assessment is concerned- unless of course there are any directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel which are required to be implemented by the Assessing Officer. […]
DLF Universal Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld AO has applied 0.5% of investment of Rs. 53.51 crores whereas the ld CIT(A) restricting 0.5% only Rs. 30.84 holding that balance investment of approximately Rs. 22 crores was made in the subsidiary companies and there was no intention of earning any dividend income. The ld CIT(A) […]
Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case before us, the assessee had offered its entire income including income by way of winnings from lotteries on unsold lottery tickets, as income chargeable under the head ―Profits and gains of business or profession“. However, the ld PCIT had sought to treat the income […]
ACIT Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Delhi) > HELD THAT:- In the present assessee’s case, search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2009 in the premises of Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act […]
Ganpati Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sar Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The contention of Ld. AR that a Review petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Tasgaon SSK Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 420 (SC) which is still pending and hence the decision […]
Ropar Properties And Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) To convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny, the Assessing Officer shall be required to form a reasonable view that there is a possibility of under statement of income and that view should be based on credible material or information available on record and such […]
Bajaj Sons Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) We find that a separate surrender of Rs. 97.11 lacs has been made by Shri SB Bajaj Director of the assessee company on account of unexplained cash found during the search action. However, so far as the surrender of Rs. 15 lac to cover any discrepancy is concerned, […]
Merely saying that `loan had been advanced’ or `ITR had not been filed’, without disclosing the reasons, which led AO to hold such a belief , did not confer valid jurisdiction on the AO to take action u/s 147 and 148.
