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...
Sh. Shambhu Dayal, Ravi Dutt, Gori Shankar Rajesh Rohit L/h Late Sh. Jhabar Mal (ITAT Jaipur) The undisputed facts are that the assessee, Shri Jhabar Mal Kumawat had expired on 10.10.2015 as noted by the AO in the assessment order. Thereafter, the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 were recorded and after seeking approval […]
Merely earning surplus by assessee did not result into the conclusion, that assessee was carrying on its activities, which could be termed as business, trade, or commerce, charging a nominal fee to use coding system and to avail of advantages and benefits therein was neither reflective of business aptitude nor indicative of profit-oriented intent. Accordingly, proviso to section 2(15) did not get attracted, and hence, there was no justification for denying exemption under section 11.
Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that there is no dispute regarding the business of assessee and earning Rs.200/- extra over and above regular income for selling 37,752 sq. ft. in Aayodhya Nagari project. From the day one i.e. from date of survey as discussed above, the assessee was contended the amount […]
Atos India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the assessment initiated in the name of a non-existing entity is justified in law? ITAT states that, even after the learned DRP taking into account the fact of merger and passing order by giving directions to the learned AO in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the marketing expenditure incurred on account of issuance of handsets on free of cost basis is allowed as business expense or not?
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is justified in law?
Motherson Sumi Infotech & Designs Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the next issue raised is against the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of interest due on receivables outstanding. The said issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Global Logic India Ltd. for […]
Disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F on the ground of assessee holding one more residential property in joint name along with his wife, could not be sustained as although in purchase deed, name of assessee was also there along with name of wife and purchase consideration of second residential property was paid by her out of joint/her individual bank account however, assessee’s wife was having sufficient own funds in that joint bank account received as her share in sale proceeds of shares.
DCIT Vs Venus Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The common grievance in all these appeals relates to the deletion of the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained share capital and premium though quantum may defer in each year. Vide application dated 30.01.2020, the assessee has invoked Rule 27 of the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the architectural services provided to Singapore Entity taxable at 10% or 20% when the benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available?
