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 Delhi held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proving cessation of liability. The Tribunal found that f...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does no...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab in...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
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 additions based solely on third-party statements and Excel data seized from another person cannot survive without independent corroboration. Denial of effective cross-examination rendered the section 69C addition unsustainable.
The tribunal held that remuneration received by a professional partner qualifies as professional income. The key takeaway is that such receipts can be taxed under Section 44ADA.
The tribunal held that cash deposits of a petrol pump operator during demonetisation could not be fully treated as unexplained. Only a lump sum addition was sustained, recognizing the business nature of receipts.
ITO Vs Oval Investment Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) AIS/Form 10DB Mismatch Not Conclusive- Share & F&O Profits Taxable Only in Real Owner’s Hands- Commission Agent Cannot Be Taxed on Principal’s Trading Income dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions aggregating to ₹4.13 crore, holding that share trading, F&O and dividend income belonged to the […]
Chennai ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29-03-2022 are invalid under the mandatory faceless assessment framework, quashing all consequential orders while preserving the Revenue’s right to revive proceedings if Apex Court rules otherwise.
ITAT found the recorded reasons vague and non-specific, failing to even identify the nature of alleged escapement. Such mechanical reasons render the notice under section 148 void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned an extraordinary 2315-day delay, noting that the disallowance arose from a return-filing error and not lack of application of income. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT ruled that disallowing full purchases while also taxing corresponding sales is legally unsustainable. A uniform 6% gross profit estimation on alleged non-genuine transactions was upheld as a fair and pragmatic approach.
Whether additions under sections 68 and 69C can be made without seized material. In search cases, completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless incriminating material is found during the search.
The issue was whether entire alleged bogus purchases should be added as income after a search assessment. The Tribunal held that where consumption and records are not disputed, only the profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
