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 examined how brought-forward losses should be computed for MAT purposes. It held that losses as on the end of the preceding year must be considered, not figures altered during the assessment year.
The Tribunal examined whether an allotment letter fixing consideration could qualify as an agreement under section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that where part payment is made by cheque, stamp duty value on the allotment date must be adopted.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where no incriminating material was found during search. Documentary evidence proving the loan’s genuineness was accepted.
The Tribunal ruled that rental receipts could not be shifted to income from other sources without any change in facts. Long-standing acceptance of house property treatment required the Department to follow consistency.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be applied once the assessee qualified as a company in which the public are substantially interested. The ruling clarifies that the charging provision itself fails where statutory exclusion applies.
The addition for alleged cash paid towards property purchase was deleted as the transaction itself stood cancelled. The ruling confirms that cancelled transactions weaken unexplained cash allegations.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment actions taken by the faceless assessment centre before the notified date were without authority. The final assessment order was therefore held invalid.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹18.48 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x) after noting that the nature of the property as stock-in-trade was never examined. The matter was remanded to verify whether the asset was business inventory, in which case the provision would not apply.
The Tribunal held that mere facilitation of third-party payments to an associated enterprise does not constitute a service. As no value addition was involved, applying a markup on reimbursements was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld reopening and reassessment but reduced the estimated commission income from 2% to 1% due to absence of comparative or segmental justification.
