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...
Devendra Kumar Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) The impugned addition stem from the fact that an amount of Rs.8 Lacs in cash (in old currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 & Rs.1000 as demonetized by government on 08/11/2016) was found from the possession of the assessee on 18/11/2016 at arrival terminal of Maharana Pratap Airport, […]
Smt. Gyatri Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) From the record, we also noticed that the A.O. has not stated either in the assessment order or in the ordersheets of the assessment proceedings that any notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. It is clear that there is no notice U/s 143(2) […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Mayo College General Council (ITAT Jodhpur) The deduction of depreciation for Rs.300.37 Lacs as claimed by the assessee was denied by Ld. AO on the reasoning that cost of fixed asset is an application of income and therefore further deduction of depreciation tantamount to double deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation by […]
Sonali Hemant Bhavsar Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We observe from the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act for limited scrutiny dated 19.09.2016 and find merits in the contentions of the assessee that the said limited scrutiny can not be expanded unless the AO converted it into complete scrutiny with the approval of Ld. […]
R. & H. Property Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Pr. CIT had held the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 10.10.2016 as erroneous, in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, for the reason, that he had failed to carry out proper investigation as regards the […]
ITAT Mumbai verdict on Amarchand & Mangaldas vs ACIT. Disputed tax credit under Indo-Japanese tax treaty. Details of the case and judgment.
DCIT Vs Morarjee Realities Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ‘Capital Asset’ as defined in Sec.2(14) would mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession’, except those which are specifically excluded in the said section. The only exclusion is only for stock in trade, consumables or raw materials […]
ACIT Vs Fortis Hospitals Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Non compete fee did not confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity. The right is restricted only to the particular party or individual and does not have the exclusivity over the rest of the world. Thus, non-compete fee cannot be termed as intangible asset. The […]
Merely because tax at source has been deducted by the builder, the receipt of mobilization money cannot be deemed as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision reached by the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition on this count. Finding no merit in this ground raised by the revenue, the same stands rejected.
Admach Auto Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Disposal Of Objection To Reasons In Assessment Order Itself Without Separate Speaking Order Makes Entire Reassessment Invalid We have also gone through the objections dated 27.12.2016 filed by the assessee before the AO in which the assessee has specifically objected the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 of the […]
