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...
Tribunal quashed CIT(A)’s cryptic order that upheld addition based solely on IDS declaration. The case is remanded to ensure a fair hearing, full analysis of the Joint Development Agreement, and accurate determination of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order on land ownership and capital-asset status. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication and proper hearing.
The ITAT held that a provisional addition under Section 56(2)(x) cannot be finalized without a Departmental Valuation Officer’s report. The case was remitted to the AO for proper valuation and reassessment.
The Tribunal emphasized that even pending SLPs cannot override the statutory 10-year limitation for assessments. Revenue’s attempt to reopen AY 2010-11 under Section 153A was rejected, upholding the CIT(A)’s quashing of the order.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 13A does not automatically relieve the payer from deducting TDS on interest paid to political parties. It found the earlier High Court ruling relied upon by CIT(A) to be distinguishable. The matter was remitted to the AO to test compliance with the first proviso to Section 201.
ITAT Hyderabad held that verifying documents of only one party cannot substitute verification of all transactions under Section 69C. The matter is remanded to the AO for de novo scrutiny of purchase bills, ledger accounts, transportation memos, and payment proofs for all thirteen parties.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by condoning delay in the quantum appeal but refusing the same in penalty appeals. Since sufficient cause existed and was already recognized, delay in all penalty appeals was condoned. Penalty matters were restored to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
The Tribunal held that AO’s ad-hoc disallowances were unsustainable as he failed to verify evidence. CIT(A) examined detailed ledgers and explanations, deleting unsupported additions. The appeal highlights the importance of evidence-based assessments over arbitrary estimates.
ITAT Agra held that reassessment under Section 144 by JAO is valid even though faceless procedure under Section 144B was generally applicable. The CBDT Circular of 17.03.2022 provided relaxation for cases with expiring limitation. CIT(A)’s non-est finding was set aside, ensuring compliance with procedural exceptions.
