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 Mumbai annulled a Section 148 reassessment notice for AY 2018-19, finding the sanction invalid because it was approved by the PCIT instead of the statutorily mandated PCCIT. The ruling strictly applies the Vodafone Idea doctrine, confirming that a jurisdictional defect in the sanctioning authority after three years is fatal to the entire proceeding.
The ITAT restored the assessee’s appeal, condoning the delay because the NFAC sent crucial communications to a wrong email, thus depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The ruling confirms that the entire appellate proceeding becomes non-est if service of notice is flawed, and the matter must be decided afresh on its merits.
The Delhi ITAT set aside an ex-parte assessment, remanding the Rs.13.74 lakh cash deposit case back to the AO for fresh verification. The ruling gives the taxpayer an opportunity to substantiate the deposits using a cash flow statement tracing the source to earlier large bank loan withdrawals.
Tribunal ruled that the Section 148 notice issued on 29.07.2022 was beyond the limitation period under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal (2024) decision. Reassessment proceedings were declared void, and the assessee’s appeal was fully allowed.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a Rs.18.01 lakh penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1), holding that once the underlying assessment order is set aside, the consequential penalty order cannot survive. The Tribunal clarified that the AO may initiate fresh penalty proceedings only after framing a new assessment with additions.
Delhi ITAT deleted ₹40.07 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-era cash deposits in proprietary firms, because the AO had accepted the audited books showing sufficient cash balance. The ruling emphasizes that additions for business deposits cant be made when the books arent rejected and sales/purchases arent doubted.
The Delhi ITAT in Jain Textile Industries v ACIT upheld the validity of a Section 147 reopening, ruling that where specific issues like omitted interest income and capital expenditure on accessories were not examined in the original assessment, the reopening is not a mere ‘change of opinion’ and is justified, even after four years.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a disallowance of Rs.1.22 crore, ruling that charges paid to the Stock Exchange for margin shortfall are regulatory fees, not penalties for offenses prohibited by law. Following Delhi High Court precedent, the Tribunal held these payments are allowable commercial business expenditure under Section 37(1)
ITAT Delhi held that cash-in-hand reflected in audited books remains valid even if no return was filed for the prior year, deleting the entire unexplained cash addition.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Vivaan Prakash, quashing the u/s 153C assessment for AY 2018-19. The Tribunal ruled that the single u/s 153D approval granted by the Addl. CIT for two assessment years was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the entire assessment based on precedents like PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (Delhi HC).
