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 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 Tribunal held that additions cannot stand without a clear link between seized material and the assessee. It ruled that third-p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata remands case on disallowance of subcontractor expenses, stressing need for evidence, due diligence, and verification ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the Indian entity was only a distributor and not a technology or content owner. It rejected the Revenue’s...
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 : Mumbai ITAT held that additions for alleged accommodation entries and commission income cannot be sustained solely on retracted st...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar reduced additions on unexplained cash deposits after considering that the assessee and his wife were senior citi...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar remanded a case involving denial of section 54B exemption where the assessee relied on Girdawari records to prov...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated excel-sheet entries...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that genuine business sales recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely...
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...
Expenses incurred for a proposed business project later abandoned were allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that such costs remain deductible if incurred for business purposes.
The case addresses whether third-party cultivation affects Section 54B eligibility. The Tribunal ruled that use of land for agriculture, even via villagers, satisfies legal conditions. The decision reinforces substance over form in proving agricultural use.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue prior notice before making adjustments violates the mandatory provisions of Section 143(1)(a). Such procedural lapse renders the entire adjustment legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made without issuing prior notice to the assessee violate the mandatory proviso to Section 143(1)(a). Such actions were declared legally unsustainable and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that CPC cannot make adjustments without issuing prior notice under Section 143(1)(a). The disallowance of TDS credit was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
The Tribunal held that the Indian entity was only a distributor and not a technology or content owner. It rejected the Revenue’s attempt to recharacterise the business and apply royalty-based valuation.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal clarified that filing of original return is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 54. It directed verification of conditions and allowed relief if eligibility is established.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and Excel sheets are unsustainable without independent evidence. It emphasized that denial of cross-examination violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.
