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 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 Tribunal held that additions cannot stand without a clear link between seized material and the assessee. It ruled that third-p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata remands case on disallowance of subcontractor expenses, stressing need for evidence, due diligence, and verification ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the Indian entity was only a distributor and not a technology or content owner. It rejected the Revenue’s...
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 : Mumbai ITAT held that additions for alleged accommodation entries and commission income cannot be sustained solely on retracted st...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar reduced additions on unexplained cash deposits after considering that the assessee and his wife were senior citi...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar remanded a case involving denial of section 54B exemption where the assessee relied on Girdawari records to prov...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated excel-sheet entries...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that genuine business sales recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely...
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 issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that capital gains were computed without considering the DVO valuation report. It held that ignoring such evidence is improper and directed reassessment based on correct valuation.
ITAT held that vacant unsold flats attract tax on notional rent under house property. The key takeaway is that ownership triggers taxation even without actual rental income.
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The issue involved treating cash deposits as unexplained despite being part of recorded sales. The Tribunal held that taxing the same income again results in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal addressed denial of leave encashment exemption restricted to ₹3 lakh. It held that the revised CBDT limit of ₹25 lakh applies, allowing full exemption within the threshold.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
The case examined whether settlement of a corporate guarantee liability qualifies as business expenditure. The Tribunal held that the guarantee was given for business purposes and the resulting payment was allowable.
The Tribunal examined whether loans for non-agricultural purposes disqualify a co-operative society from deduction under Section 80P. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that such loans do not bar deduction. The ruling clarifies that credit facilities to members need not be limited to agricultural purposes.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
