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...
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The only dispute in the instant appeal is regarding the treatment of the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money amounting to Rs. 41,61,000/- as business loss or capital loss. While the loss is not in dispute, according to the assessee it is a business […]
Assessee is entitled to include interest in the capital cost while computing capital gains U/s 48 of the Act. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the order of a co‑ordinate bench.
Sakharam Bhondve Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the deduction u/s 54F for reinvestment against Capital gain in the name of wife and son will be allowed or not? As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra): “It also noted that a […]
The ITAT Ahmedabad has harped upon the mechanical practices adopted by the Assessing Officers to make addition u/s 68. The moot point is that a sale which already forms part of books of account cannot be added again u/s 68 due to the reasons that Sales are already recorded in the books of accounts and the addition of the same amounts to double taxation. A prejudiced view on sale cannot be drawn when purchases are accepted without any reservation. Section 68 connotate amount credits in books of account remained unexplained need to be added. Recorded sales are not unexplained cash credits.
AO was not justified in treating assessee’s transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify the cost of acquisition and now the onus was on the Revenue to bring on record the details of the cases to justify the actual prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase of land by assessee.
A perusal of sub-section (2) of section 72A read with rule 9C reveals that condition of minimum level of production is to be seen at the end of four years and in case of non-fulfillment of the same set-off of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation, already claimed, would be chargeable to tax as income of the fourth year as per sub-section (3) of section 72A.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
Sudha Eashwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assesse is claiming exemption by way of long term capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38) of the 1961 Act and onus is on the assessee to prove that these gains are genuine […]
The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition.
Booking of bare shell of a flat was a case of construction of house property and not purchase, and since construction had been completed within three years of sale of original asset, assessee was duly entitled to deduction under section 54.
