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 : 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 Tribunal ruled that addition of alleged undisclosed income could not be sustained merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats withou...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that crucial JSK Server data, screenshots, and investigation records were never ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that a company engaged in publishing platforms, software solutions, and product development could not be compared...
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...
The Revenue treated seized cash entries as unexplained income under Section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that receipts from agricultural activities are exempt and cannot be taxed merely based on seized notings.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot survive where sales were already offered to tax and later added again under section 68. The key takeaway is that double taxation cannot result in penalty when no tax was sought to be evaded.
The Tribunal held that gratuity liability transferred to another employer on employee transfer constitutes valid discharge. Deduction cannot be denied merely because payment was not made directly to the employee.
The issue was whether final DRP-based assessments passed beyond statutory timelines are valid. The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 144C must be read with Section 153, rendering delayed final orders void.
The tax authorities denied Section 54 relief citing delay in completing construction. The Tribunal ruled that Section 54 is a beneficial provision and does not mandate full completion within three years.
The Tribunal held that a registered JV agreement with possession in 2011 constituted transfer under section 2(47). Capital gains could not be taxed in AY 2017-18 and had to be aligned to the correct year.
The issue was whether reassessment could be reopened on matters already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held that without fresh tangible material, reopening amounts to change of opinion and is invalid.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding that work orders, invoices, and bank payments established genuineness of expenses. The ruling clarifies that suspicion alone cannot override documentary evidence.
The issue was whether notional income booked on a joint development agreement can be taxed before project commencement. The Tribunal held that only real income can be taxed and deleted the disallowance.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when objections to reopening were ignored. The Tribunal ruled that non-disposal of objections violates mandatory procedure and renders the reassessment void ab initio.
