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...
Shri Om Prakash Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra) When we test the explanation of the assessee in the light of evidences available on records and the precedents governing the issue, we find that identity of the Company who has advanced money to the assessee is proved beyond doubt. There can be hardly any dispute regarding […]
Since the receipt of loans, repayment and payment of interest thereon had been made through regular banking channels from account payee cheques and no deficiencies whatsoever were found in the documentary evidences submitted by assessee, therefore, no addition of loan amount could be made under section 68
NEWS – DIRECT TAX 1. Income Tax Department detects foreign assets in recent search. 2. NR earning income from investment fund set up in IFSC is exempt from filing of ITR. 3. CBDT extends due date for filing of ITR from 31-07-2019 to 31-08-2019. 4. Income earned by NR from off-shore investments routed through Category […]
Bright line test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transaction for calculating arms length price.
Enhancement u/s 251 (1) (a) is prohibited on the issues which have not at all been considered by AO during assessment proceedings, therefore, CIT (A) had exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the income of assessee by considering the new sources of income not at all considered by AO.
Amount received by assessee from ‘HUF’, being its member, was a capital receipt in his hands and was not exigible to income tax as in case of individual, the HUF has not been included in the definition of relative in explanation to section 56(2) (vii) as it was not so required because in case of HUF,
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) […]
AO was not justified in adding the entire suppressed receipts after rejection of books of accounts while making assessment u/s 153A as CIT(A) was fair enough to apply 2% of net profit rate on the alleged suppressed receipts by taking basis of net profit rate disclosed by the assessee for various assessment years which ranges from 0.5% to 2.05%.
ITO Vs Mukesh Champaklal Shah (ITAT Pune) The definition of capital asset excludes agricultural land and certain criteria have been placed in this statue to qualify the land as agricultural land. The facts on records demonstrate that both the parties have accepted the land to be an agricultural land. The 7/12 extracts clearly demonstrates the […]
Sharing of the profit or income under the agreement between the parties and assessee and 80% of the income was going to the commercial entities clearly established the intention of the parties in this arrangements being for profit were not solely for providing education, therefore, the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was not available to assessee.
