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...
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.
The Tribunal held that a landowner under a JDA cannot be forced to adopt the percentage completion method merely because the developer follows it. Consistent use of the project completion method was upheld as legally valid.
Both 12AB and 80G applications were rejected without adequate reasoning or opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized mandatory compliance with due process. The cases were sent back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether late-fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing TDS returns before 01-06-2015. The Tribunal held that without Section 200A(1)(c), such levy was without authority of law.
Chennai ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263, confirming that when the AO adopts a plausible view and conducts proper scrutiny, revision is unwarranted.
The ITAT held that limitation under section 144C(13) starts from the date DRP directions are uploaded on the ITBA portal. A final order passed beyond this deadline was declared void ab initio.
