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 ruling set aside a large AMP adjustment after finding that commission paid to distributors could not be recharacterized as marketing expenditure. Consistency with prior years played a decisive role in deleting the adjustment.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The issue was whether advance money from a failed land deal could be taxed as income. The Tribunal held that without clear forfeiture, section 56(2)(ix) does not apply. Key takeaway: forfeiture is mandatory to tax advances.
The issue was whether a ₹3.05 crore disallowance under section 14A could stand without nexus to exempt income. The ITAT held that only a reasonable amount with clear linkage can be disallowed, capping it at ₹10 lakh.
The issue was whether section 153C could extend beyond six years without discovery of an undisclosed asset of ₹50 lakh or more. The ITAT held that in absence of such asset-based satisfaction, extended jurisdiction is invalid.
The ITAT held that cash redeposited after a clearly documented bank withdrawal cannot be treated as unexplained. The ruling emphasizes that verifiable fund movement defeats section 69A additions.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the prescribed time limit was valid. The Tribunal held that notices for the relevant year issued after the cut-off date were barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment void.
The ITAT held that land-levelling and fencing expenses are integral to acquiring agricultural land and qualify for section 54B deduction. The ruling clarifies what constitutes eligible investment despite restricting unregistered costs.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
