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...
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT held that ITR and bank statements were sufficient to prove the genuinety and for creditworthiness under Section 68 of Income Tax Act.
Held that an employee holding a civil post under a state is eligible for exemption towards amount of gratuity received under section 10(10) of Income Tax Act
Held that benefit of carried forward business losses and unabsorbed dep. u/s. 72A available only if the amalgamation/demerger is genuine
Issue relating to the land vacation compensation charges claimed by the assessee in the year under consideration was duly examined by the Assessing Officer by making the necessary inquiries and after satisfying himself on perusal of the relevant details and documents placed on record by the assessee
Held that addition of the amount of unsecured loan sustained as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan transactions except filing the affidavits.
Held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdictional powers
Held that the addition made on account of excess depreciation claimed, having been surrendered by the assessee itself without any prior detection by the Revenue, the excess claim having been demonstrated to have been made for bonafide reasons, it is surely not a case for levy of penalty at all.
Held that the expenditure incurred on mere registration of trade-mark is a revenue expenditure
DCIT Vs Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports India Pvt Ltd (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find that even though it is claimed by the Ld. AR that there was a technical error which prevented the assessee from filing/uploading the Form-10CCB along with return of income filed U/s. 139(1), the Ld. AR could not produce the Form-10CCB claimed […]
Term two years has been interpreted to mean that not during the whole period of two years, even if the land is used for some days in the earlier year, it would be sufficient for compliance of provisions of section 54B
