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...
These three appeals of the Revenue and two cross objection of the assessee, are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi (in short the ‘CIT-(A)’]. In assessment years 2006-07, the assessee has not filed cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue, however, in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the […]
This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai dated 16.10.2012 for Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
Since the difference is reconciled at the penalty stage and claim of assessee have not been doubted or rejected, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the levy of penalty merely because assessee conceded for addition of the amount in question.
Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in securities and shares. In the year under consideration the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 29,82,952/- on the sale of Mutual Fund which was held as stock in trade and as such claimed as business loss. The issue in this case is whether the amount of Rs 29,82,952/- on account of loss on sale of mutual funds can be treated as capital loss as held by the AO as against business loss shown by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the loss has been incurred during the normal course of the business.
No appeal should be filed before Tribunal in case tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. The tax effect means the difference between tax on the total income assessed and tax that what have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which appeal is intended to be filed. This circular further states that tax will not include any interest thereon the chargeability of interest itself is in dispute.
1. The argument of the assessee in this case is that the selection for scrutiny of this case manually done by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and that the Commissioner of Income Tax has granted approval for selection of this case for scrutiny by the AO without application of mind. Ld. Counsel for […]
In this case AO has made addition merely on the basis of ledger extract filed by the assessee on the assumption that the said payments are interest payments which attracts TDS under the provisions of section 194A of the Act, without conducting further inquiries in the background of the assessee’s claim that the said payments […]
Hon’ble Ravi Shankar Prasad, Union Minister of Law & Justice Hand Electronics & Information Technology, inaugurated Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 1st September, 2017. Hon’ble Shri P.P.Chaudhary, Union Minister of State for Law & Justice and Electronics & Information Technology, was the Guest of Honor of the function. Hon’ble Members of Parliament Shri C. R. Paatil, Smt. Darshana Jarodsh, Dr. K. C. Patel, Shri Manuskhbhai D. Vasva, and Shri Nathubhai G. Patel were also present on the occasion.
In the instant case, the deductee has filed the return of income on 14.12.2012 and the long term capital gains resulted into capital loss which resulted into nil demand. According to the assessee, there was no tax payable by the deductee on the transaction of sale of immovable property. When there is no tax payable by the deductee on sale of land, there is no question of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, as per instruction No.2 of 2014 dated 26.2.2014 and the circulars are binding on the Departmental officers. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act as per instruction No.2 of 2014 and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits found in bank account in case having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct, explanation offered by assessee was not wholesome, credible and verifiable.
