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 dismissal of an appeal for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that a bona fide misunderstanding of limitation can justify condonation and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that warranty provisions based on past experience are deductible even if a sizeable opening balance exists. Estimated future obligations from past sales qualify as allowable business expenditure.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed as time-barred should be revived when delay was caused by a tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the cases for merits-based adjudication.
The ITAT ruled that section 69A cannot be invoked unless ownership of cash is established. Mere third-party seized ledgers without recovery of money are insufficient to sustain an addition.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained money provisions cannot be applied on conjectures when the source of cash is reasonably explained. With no dispute on withdrawals and savings, the demonetisation-period addition failed on merits.
The ITAT emphasised that dismissal of appeals without dealing with substantive grounds is legally untenable. NFAC was directed to rehear the reassessment appeals after granting reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) must pass a speaking order addressing all grounds raised. Failure to do so vitiates the appellate order, regardless of assessee’s non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer has examined and accepted the source of property investment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot reopen the issue under section 263. The ruling emphasizes finality of AO’s findings.
The appeal was filed late due to ongoing police proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal held this to be sufficient cause and restored the appeal for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that a bad debt claim involving factual and legal analysis cannot be disallowed during section 143(1) processing. Such issues must be examined through regular assessment proceedings, not summary adjustments.
