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...
Simply because outstanding liability at the end of the year is comparatively higher, considering the amount of expenditure incurred during the year, does not empower the AO to disallow the actual outstanding liability unless it is found that the liability shown was not genuine.
Whether profit % can be applied on estimate basis if books of accounts are rejected, without reference to earlier year’s profit % where books were accounts were not rejected or whether the Assessing Officer is justified in Assessing the profit at a rate higher than earlier year in which profit was assessed by Assessing officer without specifying the reason for the same?
In our considered view, even if the assessee failed to put-in appearance, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of VODAFONE ESSAR LTD Vs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL–II & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7028/2010 order dated 02.12.2010.
It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine the books of accounts with the related evidences and documents and thereafter should have arrived at a decision. Without verification of books of accounts produced before him and bringing any material on record, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as an afterthought.
The contention of the assessee is that he has shown income from truck under section 44AE of Rs. 2,01,000/- which includes income of Rs.1,07,890/- from M/s. Chandan Carriers, and therefore, no separate addition of Rs.1,07,890/- is warranted. None of the lower authorities has verified this contention of the assessee.
However, it is a well-settled proposition that the quantum of penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that the assessee did not challenge or agitate the issue before higher forum and accepted the disallowance made by the AO.
Whether assessment related to pre-liquidation period cannot be done ex-parte during the period of liquidation without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to ex-management?
The test to decide, as to whether the income is revenue in nature or capital receipt, is that if the funds borrowed are just surplus and by virtue of that circumstances they are invested in fixed deposits the income earned in the form of interest will be taxable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ [as per ratios of SC decision in 227 ITR 172].
Though in these case the appeal in quantum was decided in favour of the assessee and thereby penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, there are also cases where the appeal in quantum was decided by Tribunal against the assessee and the appeal was pending before High Court for disposal but High Court had admitted the appeal, even in that case, it was decided by Delhi Tribunal that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied being debatable issue
Protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the present case cannot be sustained because substantive addition has been made in the hands of IBN-18 Broadcast and therefore, if any addition is made in the present case, it will amount to double addition.
