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 Delhi held that reopening beyond four years requires sanction from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Approval taken from the Joint Commissioner rendered the reassessment invalid.
The ITAT addressed whether a ₹ 28.94 Cr penalty was time-barred, focusing on whether the penalty initiation date starts with the AO’s satisfaction or the Addl. CIT’s notice.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of ‘reasons to suspect’ rather than on ‘reason to believe’ is invalid in the eye of law. Held that passive reliance on third-party intelligence would render the reopening invalid as it reflected merely a ‘reason to suspect’.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order under Section 154, holding that a debatable issue regarding provision for construction expenses is not a “mistake apparent from record.” The ruling reinforces that Section 154 cannot be used to make additions that require a long-drawn process of reasoning or legal interpretation.
The ITAT followed its earlier ruling for the German financial institution, confirming that the management/processing fee was a component of the loan financing and not a fee for technical services. The decision directed the deletion of the entire addition, reinforcing that the taxability of fees must be determined based on their underlying nature and link to the principal loan.
The Tribunal ruled that the cross-charged fee for use of third-party software does not qualify as Royalty as the payment is for a copyrighted article and not the transfer of copyright rights. This decision deletes a significant addition, reaffirming that the make available clause in the DTAA was not satisfied.
The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)’s pragmatic decision to restrict an addition of ₹8.21 crore for unexplained cash deposits to a 5% profit margin on the total deposits. This estimation was deemed reasonable, considering the nature of the assessee’s pottery trading business where full documentation was absent, balancing commercial reality with revenue protection.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed a revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the Assessing Officer’s detailed scrutiny into the Rs.124 crore business loss was adequate.2 The Tribunal confirmed that when an AO conducts proper inquiries, the order is not “erroneous” and cannot be subject to revision merely because the PCIT disagrees.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of Rs.85.05 lakh, ruling that Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of M/s Pine Animation Ltd. shares was genuine. The Tribunal held that demat-backed transactions through banking channels cannot be rejected merely based on a general Investigation Wing report.
The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was unsustainable because it failed to cite any specific instance where the AO neglected to verify the alleged fictitious loan transaction. For Section 263 to apply, both the error in the assessment and prejudice to the revenue must be proven, which the PCIT did not demonstrate.
