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...
Amount received by a retired partner from its erstwhile partnership firm could not be claimed as exempt under section 10(2A) as the reading of section makes it clear that it makes profit of a firm assessed as such exempt in the hands of its partners and assessee was not at all partner in the said firm.
Income on sale of a technical concept, that assessee developed on his own, with respect to website malware monitoring was non-compete fee taxable as business income under section 28(va) as the consideration was in respect of parting the knowledge by assessee concerning confidential information relating to the business.
M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Banglore) We have held that the sole basis of reopening of the assessment is the information received from the CBI. It is an undisputed fact that AO did not supply those materials to the assessee and also did not confront them with the assessee. Hence, we are […]
Murtuza Shabbir Jamnagarwala Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Conclusion: Assessee was entited for exemption u/s. 54B as the land transferred by assessee was “Jirayat” type of agricultural land and the same was cultivated land as “Jowar crop” was grown on the same in last four years in line. Held: Assessee, along with other two co-owners, entered […]
Where assessee-company had advanced interest-free loan to its sister concerns out of interest bearing fund, the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was proper because the loan could not be said to have been given out of commercial expediency, when the two concerns had independent lines of manufacturing and were manufacturing different products.
Ms Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs ITO (OSD) (TDS) (ITAT Bangalore) FACTS – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. paid cash equivalent of unutilized leave at the time of retirement of their employees, however, they didn’t deducted TDS on the same. As per section 10(10AA), in case of payment towards unutilized leave period, entire payment […]
Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT & Anr. (ITAT Kolkata) Citation: Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT &Anr. (ITAT Kolkata); ITA No.2818/Kol/2013 & ITA No.04/Kol/2014; 27/04/2018; 2006-07 Conclusion: Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure was without application of mind by AO as disallowances of expenses cannot exceed the amount of actual expenses claimed by assessee. Held: In […]
Kalyan Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Where assessee had not claimed cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores for purchase of land as business expenditure or treated as stock or capitalized the same in order to claim depreciation in the future, disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be made. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This […]
Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is true that noticed dated 21.11.2011 was for both the A.Ys i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, each A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A perusal of the said notice, […]
Disallowance under section 43B could not be done in respect of provision for gratuity made for the benefit of the employees for the reason that no actual payment was made.
