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...
Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We are of the considered opinion that the ALP of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. At the same time, we cannot ignore the submission of the learned DR that the matter […]
Hindustan Coca-Cola Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have carefully considered the facts of the case that the assessee stated that approximately 10000 cases were pulled back by the assessee from the market in view of the exceptional quality issues. The assessee submitted that the above quality issue is the pulled back […]
Add. CIT Vs Ircon International Ltd (ITAT Delhi) When we examine the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the instant case in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla (supra), it is evident that the Assessing Officer has merely perused the records available with […]
Assesse was under a bonafide belief that cash medical benefit were only reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the employees, and as such they could not form part of their income, therefore, no tax could be recovered from the employer on account of short deduction of tax at source under section 192(1), if a bona fide estimate of salary taxable in the hands of the employee was made by the employer.
Lack of declaration in Form No.10 regarding specific purpose for which funds were being accumulated by the assessee trust would not be fatal to the exemption claimed u/s.11(2) of the Act.
Sumeru Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is the case of the assessee that it had cancelled the allotment of certain flats in its commercial complex as the allottees/debtors refused to pay the outstanding amount towards the interest, complex maintenance charges and electric installation charges and the same were reversed and written off in respective […]
Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) At the outset, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee that in the absence of any adverse judgment by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, i.e., the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, there being divergence of judicial opinion on the subject […]
Discount offered on some of the prepaid mobile services did not partake the character of commission under Section 194H and hence there was no obligation to withhold tax on such discounts on prepaid services.
Sumeru Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) The Ld. CIT(A) has ascertained the factual aspect that this is not a closure of business but temporary discontinuance of business. We further noted that in earlier years the interest expenditure claimed by assessee were allowed by the department itself. However, in the year under consideration the same was […]
JCIT (OSD) Vs Kingfisher Airlines Limited (ITAT Bangalore) The first issue is related to disallowance of helicopter expenses. We notice that the A.O. was constrained to make adhoc disallowance since the assessee has failed to furnish details called for by the A.O. We also notice that the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A) also. […]
