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 Delhi quashed reassessment orders for three assessment years (AY 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17) based on fundamental legal flaws. The ruling confirms that reassessments are invalid if initiated on wrong or substituted reasons, if they are time-barred (following the Supreme Court’s concession in the Rajeev Bansal case), or if they proceed without valid statutory sanction from the competent authority.
The Tribunal annulled a reassessment after finding the AO wrongly assumed no return was filed. It held that a notice under Section 148 issued without applying mind is invalid, reinforcing that “reason to believe” must rest on verified facts.
Delhi ITAT declared an entire income tax assessment void ab initio because Assessing Officer, who assumed jurisdiction post-transfer, failed to issue mandatory notice under Section 143(2). This ruling confirms that a fresh jurisdictional notice is compulsory for the new AO to validate the assessment proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a Rs.1.83 crore addition for alleged bogus loans, ruling that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted search statements cannot override documentary evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the loans were genuine, noting the assessee provided full proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness via audited accounts, bank statements, and TDS on interest paid to the NBFC lenders.
ITAT clarified that absence of ownership transfer at the end of the lease period makes it an operating lease, rejecting Assessing Officer’s treatment of transaction as a financial lease.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Rs.10.25 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement that was subsequently retracted, citing coercion. The court found the loans were genuine, routed through banking channels, supported by evidence, and later repaid with TDS deducted interest.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of Rs.1.74 crore, ruling that corpus donations received by a registered charitable trust with specific written directions (for a “building fund”) are exempt under Section 11(1)(d). The ruling confirms that the exemption applies regardless of whether charitable activities were carried out in the same year.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, ruling the Section 148 notice issued on 31.07.2022 was time-barred. This decision strictly follows the Rajeev Bansal (SC) judgment, which held that the TOLA extension for reopening notices did not apply to AY 2015-16 beyond 31.03.2021.
The ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a primary cooperative credit society, holding that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mavilayi confirms that these societies are not excluded by Section 80P(4). The Tribunal confirmed the society’s income was derived solely from transactions with its members.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Section 68 addition of Rs.1.67 crore, holding that loans proven to be repaid through banking channels with TDS deducted on interest cannot be treated as bogus accommodation entries.1 The ruling emphasizes that additions based solely on a retracted survey statement lack evidentiary value, especially without corroborating material.
