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 Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to show independent applicatio...
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 : 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...
ITAT Rajkot partly allowed appeal, directing that 90% of cash deposited during demonetisation be accepted as explained, with only 10% taxable under normal income tax.
The Tribunal found that notices lacking classification as limited, complete, or manual scrutiny violated CBDT instructions. As a result, the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed as void ab initio.
Tribunal emphasizes requirement of notice under section 153C for assessments in block period, quashing AY 2021-22 assessment framed without jurisdiction.
The ITAT remitted the issue to the CIT(A), noting that exemption provisions were wrongly applied to a non-qualifying investor. The takeaway is that exemption claims in share premium cases must match statutory definitions and evidence.
ITAT held that a protective addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not survive once related substantive addition had been deleted in subsequent year. Ruling confirms that protective additions cannot stand independently when their basis no longer exists.
ITAT Jaipur ruled that ₹52.78 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-period cash deposits was unsustainable, citing reliable books of accounts and factual verification.
ITAT held that bank deposits consistent with declared fruit business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68; the addition of ₹1.29 crore was directed to be treated as genuine receipts.
Tribunal invalidated the reassessment because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii), rendering the Section 148 notice void.
The reassessment notice under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 did not comply with the amended provisions requiring enquiry and hearing. The NFAC held the reassessment order void ab initio. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural safeguards under amended law.
The NFAC remitted a statutory authority’s taxability under Section 2(15) to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee’s exemption claims under Sections 11 and 12 were disputed. The ruling ensures reassessment aligns with Supreme Court guidelines and provides a fair hearing.
