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 issue was whether revision could stand on incorrect factual assumptions. ITAT held that misreading records makes the revision invalid, reaffirming that Section 263 needs real errors.
The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
The issue was whether an assessment can continue after the assessee’s death. The Tribunal held such an order void ab initio when the legal heir is not substituted.
The issue was whether exempt dividend income could be taxed by overriding Rule 8D. The ITAT held that additions beyond the Section 14A framework are invalid.
The issue was whether old unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward beyond eight years. The tribunal upheld unlimited carry-forward post-2001 amendment, reaffirming that such depreciation can be set off without time restriction.
The issue was whether agricultural income was rightly disallowed for lack of proof. The tribunal deleted the addition after the Revenue’s own inspection confirmed active cultivation, reinforcing that verified facts override assumptions.
The tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income admitted during survey is duly declared in the return and accepted in assessment. The key takeaway is that absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars bars penalty, even if disclosure arose from a survey.
The ruling clarifies that specified sum under section 269SS refers to advances linked to property transfers. Cash received as final consideration at registration cannot trigger penalty under section 271D.
The Tribunal applied common sense to accept that some jewellery belonged to visiting relatives. It granted partial deletion, stressing that complete relief requires corroborative evidence.
The tribunal rejected demand raised solely due to Form 26AS mismatch caused by employer non-deposit of TDS. The key principle is that employees cannot be penalised for failures beyond their control.
