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...
ITAT Mumbai: Anil K. Shah’s appeal against reassessment. Challenges various additions including expenses, borrowed funds, and alleged bogus purchases. Legal and evidential arguments presented.
Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India Private Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is a fact that the learned assessing officer has not challenged the order of the learned CIT – A stating that resale price method is the most appropriate method as assessee does not engage in any deemed manufacturing or further value addition. It is […]
Google India Private Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) By this Stay Petition, the assessee is seeking to stay the recovery of outstanding tax arrears of Rs.1260,56,49,209. 2. Originally the stay was granted vide the order dated 20.11.2019 of the Tribunal in SP No. 293/Bang/2019, for a period of six months. As per the original stay […]
Where assessee-trust was collecting fees from different organizations towards training programmes and it also received rent for letting out its part premises; the CIT was justified in rejecting the assessee s application for grant of registration under section 12AA on the ground that the activities of the trust were not charitable, but were commercial in nature.
Minimum guarantee amount which was paid by the distributor for acquiring the exhibition rights of a movie was a fixed expenditure for the distributor that was paid to producers irrespective of the fact whether the film generated a profit or incurs losses. Hence, the payments made by assessee did not fall under the term Royalty and did not attract the provisions of TDS.
Provision for software expenses could not be disallowed by considering it as contingent liability as assessee was required to make provision for all known liabilities and losses as per accounting standards prescribed by ICAI and also by the Central Government under the Income Tax Act even though the amount could not be determined with certainty.
Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorized by the Committee on its behalf, do hereby present the One Hundred-third Report on the Subject ‘Functioning of the Virtual Courts/ Courts Proceedings through Video Conferencing’ (Interim Report).
Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In respect of transfer pricing addition made by Ld.AO. It is observed that DRP/TPO for year under consideration did not consider objections raised by assessee against comparables selected by Ld.TPO and simply followed DRP directions issued for AY 2014-15. As AY: 2014-15 has been set aside […]
DCIT Vs Gayatri Construction (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. counsel has submitted that advances were given to Ramjibhai and Company for business purpose and petrol and diesel was also purchased from them. The ld. Counsel has also contended that assessee was having interest free fund of Rs. 64,75,145/-. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the […]
PCIT cannot form another view on the same issue in which the Assessing Officer has already satisfied himself and passed an order which clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has verified and investigated the matter in detail.
