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 ITAT held that the Assessing Officer wrongly compared dissimilar email marketing services to determine excess payment. The ruling clarifies that only comparable services can be used for arm’s length evaluation, leading to deletion of the addition.
A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing limits could speed up appeal disposal and reduce backlog.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The issue was whether penalty for bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal held that concealment through non-genuine purchases attracts penalty, confirming the levy.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether income from sale of foundation seeds qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that such activities involve basic agricultural operations and allowed exemption under Section 10(1).
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate claims despite multiple opportunities. It emphasized that procedural non-compliance weakens legal claims.
The tribunal ruled that rejection of Section 54F deduction was premature as the assessee later produced relevant documents. It directed reassessment to verify evidence and ensure proper hearing.
The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)’s decision for wrongly quashing assessment due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). It held that Section 263 proceedings are a continuation of original assessment.
