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...
Since there was no material available before AO that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69.
Addition by AO under section 41(1) as liability of ‘Trade Payables’ written off was not justified as the balance-sheets filed by assessee were neither signed by the Auditor nor by the Director and, therefore, the same were not reliable and assessee had failed to produce any confirmation to the effect that the assessee received payment from M/s. O as interest free unsecured loan.
Service of notice upon a dead person under section 142(1) would not authorise him to assume jurisdiction to pass assessment order on the L/Rs. also.
Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of 2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on wrong footing that the same would be personal expenditure and hence, disallowable completely overlooking the fact that the said expenditure has never been claimed by the assessee anywhere while computing […]
HLG Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income […]
Akshaya Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in re-opening of assessment based on the same material on which he relied at the time of assessment u/s 143(3)? The assessee is a co-operative engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its […]
Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We are of the considered view that firstly, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS as the payment of EDC was not made out of any statutory and contractual liability to HUDA with whom the assessee has no privity of contract; secondly, the assessee has reasonable […]
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have noted that the hearing of stay petition was concluded, as per information available to us, on 17th January 2020, but the order thereon has not been passed as yet since one of the Members constituting coram of the bench has gone on tour to Delhi […]
Undisputedly, the assessee has obtained the tax audit report on 10th September 2013, i.e., much before the due date of filing of return of income. However, as stated by the assessee, due to lack of clarity and misinterpretation of the Circular issued by the Board, the assessee did not filed tax audit report before the due date of return of income. In our view, the aforesaid explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible, therefore, benefit of doubt can be given to the assessee
Statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same were backed by credible evidences. Assessee could not prove the source and nature of transactions, the stated amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 and the original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement in law to trigger assessment was that AO had certain reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee.
