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 reassessment was initiated beyond the permissible time frame. The Tribunal declared the entire proceedings void from inception. The key lesson is that jurisdictional defects render reassessments unenforceable.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails when the show-cause notice is issued on an incorrect factual premise. Jurisdiction under section 147 collapses if the foundation under section 148A is flawed.
The Tribunal held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer must refer the matter to the DVO. Fair market value determination is mandatory before sustaining a Section 50C addition.
The Tribunal confirmed that only ₹10 lakh received by the assessee could be taxed. Addition based on total sale value was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found from a third party cannot justify addition for cash interest without corroborative evidence. Presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be applied against a non-searched assessee.
The Tribunal held that share capital received from promoters cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68 without tangible evidence. Mere suspicion about source of funds or share premium is insufficient.
The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officers action after finding clear admission of issuing accommodation bills. Commission at 1% was rightly taxed on both bogus purchases and bogus sales.
Authorities found the land had been sold decades earlier and the MOU acknowledged no possession or rights. The Tribunal affirmed taxation under section 56. The ruling clarifies that an MOU cannot convert non-rights into capital receipts.
The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a general survey admission by the seller cannot justify additions in every buyers case. Documentary proof of purchases and sales outweighed unsupported allegations.
