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 Tribunal held that employer-provided business advances cannot be classified as income under Section 69A without proper verification, remanding the case for limited review of TDS and expense records.
The Tribunal refused to condone a 441-day delay, ruling that failure to monitor appeal filing cannot constitute sufficient cause. The case underscores that professional lapses and lack of diligence will not excuse late appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved substantial upgrades to a semi-constructed house using bills and contractor records. It allowed the ₹4.05 crore indexed improvement cost, rejecting the AO’s suspicion-based disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void because jurisdiction shifted between officers without a mandatory transfer order. It reaffirmed that proceedings without statutory jurisdiction are null and void.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand a limited scrutiny into full scrutiny without written approval from the Principal CIT. Additions under Sections 2(22)(e) and 69A were struck down, reaffirming that CBDT instructions are mandatory.
The Tribunal held that freight amounts collected and passed on to airlines are mere reimbursements, not income. Only the assessee’s service margin is taxable.
The Tribunal found that even a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice remains a valid return requiring a 143(2) notice. Because this mandatory notice was never issued, the reassessment order was declared illegal and set aside.
ITAT held that the AO’s 8% estimation had no support from comparables or past margins. Applying consistency with earlier family-group cases, profit was fixed at 4% and the unexplained investment addition became academic.
The Tribunal held that ₹1.45 lakh in specified notes came from genuine vazhipadu collections and that the authorities wrongly rejected a plausible explanation.
Even though the assessee had opted for DTVSVA, the non-payment of tax meant the settlement did not materialize. The Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A) to examine all submitted evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity to contest additions.
