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 ruled that receipts from the sale of power generated during the pre-commencement trial run of a plant are capital receipts, not taxable revenue income. This is because, under the matching principle, corresponding pre-operative expenses were capitalized to the fixed asset cost, justifying the deletion of the Rs. 42.56 crore tax addition.
ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal in Samir N. Shah Vs ITO, holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars cannot be levied when the underlying income addition is made solely by estimating a gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases, in the absence of concrete evidence like seized material or cash transactions.
The Tribunal voided the reassessment, citing multiple legal failures: it was time-barred under the new law, the AO failed to share mandatory material, and the condition under Section 149(1)(b) requiring a proven asset/expenditure was not met. The ruling provides strong takeaways on the validity of new reassessment provisions.
ITAT Delhi rules in Mahabir vs ITO that the 1994 CBDT notification defines agricultural land limits for capital gains tax. Subsequent municipal expansions are irrelevant. Land 6km from Sohna Municipality was deemed non-taxable.
The Tribunal nullified four assessment years (AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19, 2021-22) due to serious legal defects, including unsigned/mechanical approvals and non-supply of mandatory sanction and underlying material. This ruling emphasizes that defective procedure is fatal to both reopening and regular assessment proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal {ITAT} Delhi set aside the CIT{A}’s order, remanding the addition of ₹5 crore under Section 68 back for fresh scrutiny. The issue revolves around Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. receiving share capital at a high premium from 13 companies that the Assessing Officer (AO} suspected were paper companies due to unserved statutory notices.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment year because the Assessing Officer relied solely on entries in the regular books of account. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s mandate that no addition is permissible in completed (unabated) assessments without specific, incriminating material seized during the search.
Delhi ITAT held that delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions are disallowable even under section 143(1), citing Supreme Court in Checkmate Services. However, ICDS-based depreciation adjustments exceed CPC powers and were deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that when an assessee’s own funds far exceed interest-free advances, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made. Interest addition of ₹5.62 crore was deleted, and 14A disallowance was limited to dividend-yielding investments.
The ITAT Chennai Bench dismissed an appeal because the Assessing Officer (AO) was located in Hyderabad, violating Rule 4 which dictates ITAT jurisdiction is based on the AO’s office. The ruling affirmed the principle from the Supreme Court that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional ITAT Bench, though it granted the taxpayer liberty to refile properly.
