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 Hyderabad held that rural agricultural land situated beyond 8 kilometres from municipal limits cannot be taxed as a capital a...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the assessee had furnished complete details of invest...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that th...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive v...
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 : 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 Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed on the assumption of earlier adjudication without evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
The Tribunal considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice is compulsory once a return is filed under Section 148. Absence of such notice vitiates jurisdiction and nullifies the reassessment.
The ruling clarified that the Finance Act, 2021 amendment applies only from AY 2022–23. For earlier years, exemption cannot be denied by treating the amendment as retrospective.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings remain valid even if no separate addition is made on the original reopening issue. The key lesson is that voluntary disclosure by the assessee satisfies the reopening requirement.
Rejecting the revenue’s digital-era argument, the Tribunal held that taxpayers need reasonable time to compile records. The matter was sent back for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that only unreconciled Form 26AS entries could be taxed while verified reimbursements deserved relief. It also ruled that godown rent already netted in business income could not be taxed again.
The Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority lacks power to dismiss appeals solely for non-prosecution. Appeals must be decided on merits with reasoned findings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period were invalid. Following the Supreme Courts ruling on reassessment timelines, the entire reopening and resulting additions were quashed.
