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 Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab in...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that notional rent cannot be taxed under “Income from Other Sources” without evidence that such income wa...
Income Tax : Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had wrongly recharacterised Boeing India Defense Private Limited as a full-risk service provider ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC after finding the political donation lacked genuineness. The rul...
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...
It was ruled that reassessment proceedings must be initiated only through the faceless mechanism after the CBDT notification under section 151A. The concept of concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO was expressly rejected.
The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had no individual business in electronic goods. In the absence of incriminating material and with sales recorded by the company, the addition was deleted.
Upholding the appellate order, the Tribunal ruled that section 68 applies only to credits of the relevant year. Opening balances and prior period adjustments cannot be taxed as unexplained income in a subsequent year.
Coca Cola India Inc. Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that final assessment order passed beyond period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and hence set aside. Facts: The present adjudication involves a batch of six appeals pertaining to the same […]
The issue concerned valuation of royalty for bundled services. ITAT held that faulty comparables vitiated the CUP analysis and ordered fresh benchmarking.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked during a pending appeal. ITAT held that PCIT lacks jurisdiction once the matter is before CIT(A).
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The tribunal held that where the Assessing Officer conducted exhaustive enquiries and applied his mind in a 153C assessment, revision under section 263 is invalid. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 is part of compensation and not taxable as other income. A reopening based on such misinterpretation was quashed for lack of valid belief.
The Tribunal held that Section 54B requires purchase by the assessee himself. Investment in agricultural land in the wife’s name does not qualify for deduction.
