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...
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an addition made under Section 69, ruling that in cases of alleged “on-money” payments found during a search, only the embedded profit component is taxable. Following the Gujarat High Court precedent, the Tribunal restricted the unexplained investment addition of Rs.1.25 lakh to just 30% (Rs.37,500).
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 56(2)(viib) addition, ruling that the CIT(A) acted improperly by selectively accepting valuation evidence for one issue (Sec. 68) but rejecting it for the share premium issue. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of the valuation evidence, establishing that all relevant material must be considered fairly.
Addition to the differential margin between the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee and the benchmark rate of 10% adopted as the industry average for rice trading was restricted affirming that a full disallowance of such purchases was not justified when the corresponding sales were accepted by the Revenue authorities.
The ITAT Panaji sent the disallowance of agricultural income back to the AO for fresh review, finding that the lower authorities ignored substantial documents and confirmations provided by the assessee. The ruling confirms that tax authorities must properly verify factual material and grant a fair hearing before disbelieving a farm income claim.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a real estate developer to HUDA are statutory government levies, not payments for the use of land. Following High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 194I (TDS on rent) is not applicable to EDC payments.
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by a US company for software licensing and support services cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, such income was classified as business profits and held non-taxable under the India-USA DTAA.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order, holding that the AO’s decision to allow Section 80G deduction on voluntarily disallowed CSR expenses was a plausible view. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court principle that Section 263 revision cannot be invoked merely for holding an alternate opinion.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the surcharge rate on the residual income of a trust must be restricted to 15%, not 37%. This decision follows the principle that the surcharge rate is governed by the Finance Act provisions, even if the base tax rate is the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR).
The ITAT upheld the classification of a Rs.5 crore loss on the sale of shares as a capital loss, not a business loss, because the NBFC consistently held the shares as non-current investments for over three years. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee’s accounting treatment and the mandated sale under Supreme Court directions confirmed the investment motive.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in filing of appeal due to non-registration on Income Tax portal and non-receipt of notices are plausible and sufficient cause show. Accordingly, delay condoned and appeal restored back for fresh consideration.
