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...
Agarwal Global Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We observe that even if we consider the selling price @ 30,675.56 by M/s Gautham Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the same was purchased from the assessee @ 25,000/- per MT with tax, the difference would be Rs. 4,500/- per MT. We gave opportunity to both […]
Kalyan Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Provisions of Section 40A(3) mention that where an assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payments were made to a person otherwise than by way of crossed cheque or account payee cheque, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. It is humbly submitted that when the […]
The word held used in section 2(14) implies right over a capital asset. In the instant case, right over the property was held by assessee for the period of 36 months, by paying first installment and builder issued a provisional letter of allotment and from that period, assessee had been enjoying legal right over the said property.
Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Once assessee had submitted that no expenditure incurred for earning dividend income, the AO was under legal obligation to demonstrate as to how he was not satisfied with the contention of assessee and only, thereafter, he could have proceeded to make a disallowance. As was […]
Xavier Institute of Management Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) The Cuttack bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income received by a charitable institution imparting education shall not be charged for receiving training and consultancy fee from corporates as the same cannot be treated as a ‘commercial activity’ for denying tax […]
Shri Tej Narayan Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Amount received and repaid by the assessee subsequently is not a loan. This is a transaction done on behalf of his children to accommodate tham in obtaining DD’s without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. Facts of […]
Bennett Coleman & Co. case: where the consideration was not money but equity shares and debentures, the transaction was not a Sale but an Exchange, the provisions of Section 50B were not applicable
DCIT Vs Swati M Kankaria (ITAT Ahmedabad) 1. Vide CBDT circular dated 11th July 2018, the income tax department has announced its policy decision not to file, or press, the appeals, before this Tribunal, against the appellate orders favourable to the assessee in the cases in which overall tax effect, including surcharge but excluding interest, is Rs […]
Income of the assessee from the incidental and commercial activity i.e. income from organizing of Davis Cup up to the limit prescribed as per the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, which for the assessment year under consideration is Rs. 25 lacs, will be treated as income from ‘charitable purposes’
Where assessee had not filed return within the time prescribed U/s 139(1), deduction u/s 80IA was not allowable to assessee as there was clear violation of section 80AC which clearly provided that deduction would not be allowed unless return was furnished on or before due date specified under section 139(1).
