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 Mumbai grants relief to Tarun Mohan Jani, ruling that property valuation difference within 10% tolerance limit doesn't warran...
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 : 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...
ITAT held that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(l)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty.
Additions made primarily on basis of oral evidence of third parties, without giving fair opportunity of hearing and right to cross-examine those parties to assessee not sustainable
Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty notice stating that, subsequently penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20.03.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 24.03.2017. The assessee was asked to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon you for concealment […]
Uma Strips Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT find that there is no live link presented by the AO between the material available with him i.e. the report of the investigation and to reason to belief that the assessee has tried to evade the assessment for the particular year in question. Simply […]
Late Shri Nemichand Gunavanthraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the assessee has moved this petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and filed additional evidences i.e., confirmation letters from relatives, copies of Income-tax returns, copies of financial statements, copies of wealth tax returns of the relatives to prove the creditworthiness of the […]
Sneha Nerli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) We are of the opinion that assessee has to prove with evidences that sufficient cash was available to deposit to her bank account. In the present case, assessee claimed that she has been working in Dubai and that the cash deposit in India were on account of amounts earned […]
Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the order of learned CIT(A) it is evident that it is assessee’s contention that the amount received is actually arrears of interest. Hence, the sum cannot be considered as cash credit. The learned CIT(A) despite noting these facts has mechanically confirmed Assessing Officer’s order without any […]
Intelsat Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that appellant being a resident of USA is covered by the beneficial provisions of DTAA between India and USA and accordingly, could not be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the issues involved in […]
It is not at the whim or fancy of a tax authority to decide as to what constitutes ‘beneficial ownership’; it is absolutely fundamental that as what constitutes beneficial ownership must also be examined and categorical findings are given as to how these requirements of beneficial ownership are satisfied in the present case.
Tata Sponge Iron Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) The fundamental requirement of showing the income from “eligible” unit in the gross total income is mandatory which was not complied by the assessee in order to claim deduction u/s.80IA of the amount equal to the income generated by the eligible unit. Facts- The appellant is company […]
