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 : ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of agricultural expenses based on estimation is unsustainable without concrete evidence, rul...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied solely due to missing bills or vouchers, emphasizing the principle of...
Income Tax : Learn about how the holding period of property impacts Capital Gain tax, including ITAT's recent decision clarifying calculations ...
Income Tax : Explore key updates on recent income tax case laws, covering international taxation, business income, and capital gains. Essential...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of a significant Delhi ITAT ruling on cash sales pre-demonetization. Learn how it affects taxation and f...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : Supreme Court of India has recently issued an order requiring all revenue appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ...
Income Tax : At present appeals are fixed in routine and may take one to two years period even for first hearing. it is humbly submitted that t...
Income Tax : CBI Registers a Case against Accountant Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the Allegations of Possessing Disproportio...
Income Tax : Law Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad launches 'itat e-dwar', an e-filing portal of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Portal will ena...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO must record a proper satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim before inv...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) without adjudicating issues on merits, such order is not sustainable ...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that additions u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act could only be made on the basis of seized material found during t...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68...
Income Tax : ITAT Indore held that rejection of appeal by CIT(A) on the footing of non-payment of advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b) ...
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...
Income Tax : Office Order No. 08 of 2021 Post facto approval of the Competent Authority is hereby conveyed for extension of term of ad-hoc appo...
Income Tax : In continuation of the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) dated 01.06.2020 the hearing of cases at 'ITAT Chandigarh Benches from 0...
Mahesh K. Bhutiya Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We have noted that the Revenue has accepted the income returned by the assessee from his business by applying 5% profit rate to his turnover of Rs. 20,85,825/-. It is evident therefore that it is an accepted fact that the assessee is a very small businessman and it […]
Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is an admitted position that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of one of its projects, namely, ‘Khinvasara Fort’. The AO did not dispute the otherwise allowability of deduction of income from the ‘Khinvasara Fort’ project, but observed that the assessee could not […]
HC after analyzing the provisions of section 48 and 112(1) of the Act has concluded that the assessee is entitled to avail the beneficial tax rate under section 112(1) of the Act.
Venkatesharaiyer Subramanian Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) There could be no quarrel on the fact that post-amendment to Sec. 54F, as applicable from AY 2015-16, deduction u/s 54F could not be claimed on purchase / construction of more than one residential house. However, the factual matrix would reveal that the assessee has made investment in one […]
Naresh Chand Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the sale deed was made in the month of October, 2013 therefore, the Assessee was supposed to invest u/s. 54EC of the Act within ‘six calendar months’ starting from November onwards and upto the month of April, 2014, which in the instant case […]
Subhag Projects Private Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee by issuing notices through ITBA System via e-Mail. It was submitted by the ld. AR that notices have been received but the assessee was unable to correspond with […]
Senapati Satija Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In Section 271B of the Act, the discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer to direct the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales etc. etc. The provisions empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty as per […]
Lake View Hospitality Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As per the provision of section 43B of the Act, any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee shall be allowable in computing the income of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by the assessee. In the present […]
Sudhi Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Assessee has filed her return of income at one place i.e. at Kolkata under her PAN A****2218B and the transactions done under PAN A****6846F are also duly reported and disclosed in the said return of income. No doubt has been shown by the revenue authorities on this contention of […]
Aadarh Developers Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot) Admittedly, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor. Therefore, the revenue has to be recognized by the assessee as per accounting standard 11 issued by the ICAI and not as per the accounting standard 7 which is applicable to the contractor. The accounting standard 11 says […]
