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...
ITO Vs M/s. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) If we examine the facts of the present case it can be seen that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had received certain unsecured loan and share capital investment which were examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment […]
ACIT Vs M/s Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years or merely on […]
Ajay Narayan Bhoir Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case of return of income processed under section 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is that taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material was there before the AO warranting re-opening, was not relevant. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT […]
Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically lead to an inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
Once assessee empowers his Authorised represntative to appear before authorities, all of authorised representatives concessions were binding on assessee and there was no need to ignore any concession made by Authorised representative and personally call upon assessee to make concession in every case.
Where the amount of insurance claim was less than the amount of actual expenditure incurred on re-construction/renovation, no short term capital gain u/s. 45(1A) could be charged under such circumstances.
Due to amendment made in section 132 by the Finance Act, 2017 w.r.e.f. 1-4-1962 the reason to believe or reason to suspect, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or authority or appellate Tribunal as recorded, by IT authority under section 132 or 132A, therefore, assessment order passed was not bad in law on account of not furnishing any valid reason for conducting the search.
Assessee had declared additional incomes when AO confronted with details of Form No. 26AS , it could not be said that declaration of income by assessee was voluntary, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment was justified, especially in view of the fact that similar income had been earned and duly offered to tax during earlier years also.
Issuance of notice under section 153C is mandatory and a condition precedent for taking action against assessee under section 153C, therefore, assessment order under section 153C issued without issuing a notice under section 153C was bad in law.
M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, the amount so received is not liable to be taxed as deemed dividend. Moreover, the transaction between two group concerns were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing […]
