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 denial of regular 80G approval due to an inadvertent filing under an incorrect clause. The Tribunal held that a procedural mistake should not bar substantive adjudication.
The issue was whether total purchases could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Tribunal held that only the profit element is taxable in a small retail trading business.
he revision targeted 80G deduction and interest under TDS/TCS provisions. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined both issues and no prejudice was shown.
The assessee challenged a large section 14A disallowance on procedural and factual grounds. The Tribunal upheld satisfaction but ordered recomputation after excluding mutual fund investments.
Holding that there was no real delay, the Tribunal directed grant of section 80G approval. The decision stresses practical and reasonable interpretation of filing timelines.
An addition based on a third-party statement was challenged for denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal held that natural justice must be followed and directed a fresh hearing.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years was valid without approval from the correct authority. ITAT held the notice void as sanction was taken from the wrong officer, reaffirming strict compliance with Section 151.
Denial of the 15% rate through summary processing was held invalid. Eligibility under section 115BAB requires examination and hearing, not mechanical CPC adjustments.
The issue was whether reopening is valid when the information relied upon is not shared. The Tribunal held that failure to supply such material violates natural justice and vitiates reassessment.
The issue was whether an extraordinary delay caused by non-communication of intimation and a CPC error could be condoned. ITAT held the delay was unintentional, imposed costs, and remanded the case for adjudication on merits.
