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 : ITAT Delhi held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proving cessation of liability. The Tribunal found that f...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does no...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab in...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
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...
The Tribunal ruled that Section 14A cannot be invoked where borrowed funds were not used to earn exempt income. Disallowance was deleted after finding investments were made from interest-free funds.
ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made for an unabated year unless incriminating material is found during search. Share premium additions based only on books and enquiries were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal upheld exemption where the assessee invested the entire capital gain within time but possession was delayed due to builder-related litigation. The ruling confirms that investment, not possession, is the key requirement under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the statutory sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically. Mere use of the word Approved does not show application of mind and vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that ad hoc disallowance is unsustainable when books are not rejected. Disallowance was reduced to 8% based on facts and past practice.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening was granted mechanically and without independent application of mind, as required under Section 151. An undated and non-speaking approval vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
Failure to demonstrate a dated approval under Section 151 proved fatal to the Revenue’s case. The decision underscores strict compliance in reopening assessments.
The assessment was set aside as the Revenue produced no acknowledgment of service. The ruling reiterates that service of notice is foundational to reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority has a statutory duty to decide grounds on merits and cannot dismiss them as not adjudicated for want of details. Orders violating sections 250(6) and 251(1) were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/144B is void if no notice under Section 143(2) is issued. Acting on a return filed or adopted in response to Section 148 triggers mandatory jurisdictional compliance.
