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...
CBDT Instruction No. 1916 allowing the specific quantity as reasonable and need not to be explained, does not include the jewellery which is otherwise explained by proof of documents of acquisition as well as declared/ recorded in the books of account of the assessee.
The moot point discussed here is very important where in, the allowed quantity as per the Instruction no 1916 is applicable in case where the assessee does not explain the source of the jewellery and the presumptive quantity is allowed. Such quantity is a Blanket Allowance.
Omega Corrugators Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai bench has held that genuine omissions must be excluded from the levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.3,57,541/- towards loss on sale of motor car in its profit and […]
Veritas (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee had established identity of investors and submitted documents to establish creditworthiness and the certificate issued by the Firm of Accountants for proving the movement of funds from ultimate investors to the foreign companies which establish genuineness of transactions thus, assessee had discharged initial burden placed upon […]
DCIT Vs Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (ITAT Mumbai) Section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in the event of non deduction of tax (TDS) but not for lesser deduction of tax. Hence, this will not be the reason to disallow the expense u/s 40(a)(ia) just because of less deduction since section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in […]
AO was not justified in denying the exemption under section 11 on the ground of excessive payment of salary and professional fees to Doctors as the services rendered by doctors who had passed out with the same degree in Cardiology (DM) could not be compared with experience doctor working in the field for the last ten years.
pleader’s gross carelessness affords no ground for condonation of delay; that a legal advisor’s mistake, in order to justify condonation of delay must be a bonafide mistake; that mistaken advice given by a lawyer negligently and without due care is not sufficient cause; that the mistake should be such, which even a skilled legal advisor, well=versed and experienced in law might make that mistake; that, the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay; and that the Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide.
Impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not apply in a case involving short deduction of TDS. ITAT therefore go by the very reasoning and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance.
Mumbai ITAT Ruling: Whether reduction in share capital amounts to a transfer and thereby gives rise to capital gains, if consideration is paid for such reduction?
Murlidhar Deendayal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) In respect of undisclosed sales only profit can be added when purchases are recorded but sales is undisclosed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT v/s President Industries (2000) 158 CTR 372 (Guj) (ii) Bansal Rice Mills v/s ITO (2001)72 TTJ 1 (Chd) […]
