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...
The case of assessee was reopened and the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. While framing the assessment, the AO restricted the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act and also confirmed the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) consequent to deposit
ITAT held that it is generally accepted prudent practice that the closing stock to be valued at lower of cost or net realizable value. Further, net realizable value means the value which the goods would fetch at the time of actual sale.
AO is bound to furnish the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act within a reasonable period of time so that the assessee could file its objections thereto and the AO was to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order thereon, which the AO has not done.
AO/CIT(A) have made the addition under section 68 of the Act merely on presumptions, suspicions and surmises in respect of penny stocks; disregarding the direct evidences placed on record and furnished by the assessee in the form of brokers contract notes for purchases and sales of the ‘said shares’
Since redemption of preference shares does not result in reduction of share capital as per Sec 80 of the Companies Act,1956 , the redemption value cannot be taxed as deemed dividend as the distribution of profits if at all there may be is not resulting in reduction of capital.
Just because the assessee has not filed its income tax returns in earlier years, it can not be said that the activities of the assessee are not genuine. It has been held that non-filing of return cannot be one of the reasons for denying registration under section 12A of the Act.
ITAT held that simultaneous trading of shares in cash segment and arbitrage in derivative segment by assessee company cannot be splitted into speculative and non-speculative transactions . So, as soon as it is found that assessee is trading in shares , the entire trading activity to be treated as speculative business as per explanation to Sec 73 which clearly state that if any part of assessee’s business is trading in shares then the same trading to be treated as speculative business.
The assessee is registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the Act) and has been claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which has been denied by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the assessee is involved in commercial activities as the assessee receives coaching fees from the students of CA while giving coaching to the CA students.
Stand alone AIR Information is not sufficient to hold that cash deposits constitute income. Cash deposits in bank account may or may not be Income. Hence when the treatment of the amount as Income is itself doubt , it definitely can not constitute Income escaping assessment and, therefore, it shall be too far fetched to hold that AIR Information constitutes Reason to believe that Income has escaped assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the provisions of Sec 50C is applicable only to transfer of land of which the assessee is absolute and legal owner and cannot be applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land.Thus, the transfer value cannot be benchmarked to stamp duty value.
