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 sending notices through email despite the assessee expressly opting for physical service constituted sufficient cause for delay. Procedural lapses by tax authorities cannot deprive an assessee of the right to be heard.
The tribunal ruled that lack of digital literacy and non-receipt of electronic orders constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. A liberal approach was adopted to ensure substantial justice, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the tax department cannot substitute actual sale consideration with a notional market price without express legal provision, and deleted the entire addition.
The Tribunal upheld addition of demonetisation cash deposits after rejecting the claim that funds came from old cash withdrawals. Mere assertion of past withdrawals, without evidence of cash retention, was held insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced 60% tax rate cannot apply to transactions before 01.04.2017. For AY 2017-18, unexplained cash additions relating to earlier transactions are taxable only at 30%.
The Tribunal ruled that once an appeal is rejected as time-barred, the appellate authority cannot adjudicate it on merits. A contradictory approach violates jurisdictional discipline and warrants remand.
ITAT ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected mechanically on alleged defects when records show compliance. The case was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication after proper hearing.
