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 ITAT Delhi ruled that a single approval for seven assessment years under Section 153D, issued without application of mind, is invalid, quashing the related assessment orders. The case underscores the need for careful, year-specific scrutiny.
Upholding the appellate authority, the Tribunal confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed casually against a non-searched person. Statutory satisfaction requirements are mandatory, not procedural.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 must follow the faceless mechanism prescribed by the CBDT Scheme, 2022. Issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the proceedings.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could still be treated as unexplained after repayment. The Tribunal held that once repayment is recorded by the AO, the addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside a Section 69C addition where subcontract payments were backed by bills, accounts, and TDS compliance. Non-filing of return by the recipient was held insufficient to brand the expense as bogus.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment received on resignation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10AA). Subsequent employment in the same year does not bar the relief.
Holding that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, the Tribunal restored the appeal. The case was remanded for reconsideration after granting opportunity.
The Tribunal held that enhancing profit to 10% without comparables was arbitrary. Past accepted margins around 6% had to guide estimation. Income was directed to be computed at 6%.
The Tribunal clarified that precedents cannot replace factual analysis under TNMM. High-turnover mismatches justified exclusion, but other comparables required verification. The ruling underscores disciplined TP benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that once delay in filing the return is condoned under Section 119(2)(b), denial of Section 80P solely for late filing is unsustainable. The deduction was directed to be allowed.
