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 Chandigarh held that cash deposits during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained income since the amounts were re...
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 Nagpur held that nominal donations received in small amounts could not be treated as non-voluntary contributions merely becau...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp...
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 : 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 interest earned from a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that such interest is deductible, as a co-operative bank is itself a co-operative society.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to file of AO for exercising the computation of disallowance u/s 14A.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to formally intimate amalgamation sustained the assessment, applying Mahagun Realtors, while striking down mechanical expense disallowances.
ITAT rules that algorithmic data, AIS flags, and system-generated alerts cannot substitute for legal evidence in income-tax additions. The ultimate burden of proof remains with the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void as approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is that failure to comply with section 151(ii) invalidates the entire reassessment.
The Tribunal held that advances received under a joint development agreement are not taxable as business income when land remains a capital asset and no transfer under section 2(47) has occurred.
The issue was whether alleged non-genuine purchases justified higher additions despite accepted sales. The Tribunal held that only the profit element can be taxed when purchases are not treated as wholly bogus.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271D were invalid as they were imposed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).
The ITAT ruled that once profits are estimated under Section 145, further disallowances of salary or commission expenses cannot be made from the same books, emphasizing assessment consistency.
The Tribunal held that once cash received was accepted in assessment without any addition, penalty for alleged violation of Section 269SS could not be sustained.
