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 restored the Section 11 exemption, ruling that the Diamond Bourse’s cost-recovery activities are purely facilitative and do not constitute “trade, commerce, or business” under the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal held that genuine General Public Utility (GPU) organizations operating on a non-profit, cost-recovery basis are not affected by the amendment.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
The ITAT upheld the disallowance of delayed employee contributions to PF/ESIC, ruling that the Supreme Courts Checkmate Services judgment is retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise by the SC itself. The Tribunal confirmed that the doctrine of prospective overruling cannot be invoked by the assessee, as the ruling merely interprets the law as it always existed.
ITAT Raipur held that since order passed by Pr. CIT u/s. 263 is quashed the addition made by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 does no more survive. Therefore, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition made by AO liable to be quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cash deposit on account of family settlement needs to be proved with documentary evidences like family settlement deed or relinquishment of property right etc. Matter restored with direction to assessee to submit relevant proof.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed since donation was given to Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust whose approval expired on 31.03.2006. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that sum has been received for work relating to interior and other finishing work and total consideration is received through banking channel. Hence, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Hence, penalty u/s. 271D not leviable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condition of investment to the corpus donation in mode prescribed under section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01/04/2022. Hence the said condition is not applicable in the relevant year. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
