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 Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
ITAT Pune held that filing a revised return after the Department detects wrong deductions is not voluntary. Since the assessee acted only after detection, penalty u/s 270A(9) for misreporting was rightly imposed at 200% of tax.
ITAT Pune held that reopening based on old investigation data was invalid where transactions were already verified under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the penny stock gains genuine as supported by Demat, bank, and STT records.
Where the property was not actually let out, and was treated as self-occupied property, in case of vacant property, the annual value under section 23(1)(a) must be determined on the basis of the Municipal Rateable Value and not market rent.
The ITAT Bangalore deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh addition made on demonetisation cash deposits, ruling that cash from accounted sales in audited books cannot be deemed unexplained income simply due to being deposited during the demonetisation period. The Tribunal also deleted a Rs.4 lakh addition on lorry cost, finding the refund of an advance was correctly reflected in the genuine cash book.
The ITAT Bangalore set aside an ex-parte assessment, which included additions for low profit and demonetisation cash deposits, after the assessee cited the genuine reason of his son’s death and subsequent health issues for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the audited books, expenses, and cash sources after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
The core issue was the disallowance of Rs.169 Cr in Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), treated as capital expenditure for an enduring benefit. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that routine, recurring expenses like porting charges and handset subsidies in the telecom sector are revenue in nature and fully deductible under S 37(1).
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.7.86 Cr treated as unexplained cash credit due to a sharp increase in proprietor’s capital shown in the tax return. The ITAT set aside the addition, finding a prima facie case of mere misclassification of partner overdrawn balances as capital, which should not be automatically treated as new unexplained income under S 68.
The ITAT Mumbai canceled seven revisionary orders under section 263, ruling that for completed (unabated) assessments under section 153A, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot make additions or disallowances, such as challenging an 80IC deduction, without finding incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the PCIT’s power under $s.263$ cannot be used for a mere roving inquiry.
