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 : n Legal Initiative For Forest And Environment (LIFE Trust) Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi), the stay application was denied as the test for i...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of inc...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that construction of new dwelling unit on first floor is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Income ...
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 : 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...
Kimiyoshi Muto Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has shown perquisite under rent-free accommodation by considering only the Indian salary whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, he was required to compute perquisite value of rent-free accommodation by including […]
Onus was on Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search ‘belongs’ to the Assessee, in other words, it was not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either ‘pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that ‘relates to the Assessee.
Interest was payable under Section 234C on default in payment of advance tax installment on returned income, and not on assessed income.
Once an assessee discharged its burden, then burden shifts to AO to prove otherwise that said transaction was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, AO had not brought on record any evidence to prove that said sum was undisclosed income of assessee. Therefore, AO was completely erred in making additions towards unsecured loans received from three companies of assessee group.
Jayesh Shantilal Vira Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Addition u/s 10(38) on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) deleted where no further verification made by AO except solely reliance on information from investigation wing. ITAT held that the long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. is not […]
Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee has filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.32,01,050/-which was processed by the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) and assessed at Rs.37,66,259/-. In the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the ld.AO has taken the income of Rs.37,66,259/- assessed under section 143(1) by the CPC […]
Recent circulars/ notifications/ rules/ clarifications/News ♦ Furnishing & upload of Form No. 34BB on Income Tax E-filling Portal (Notification No. 05 of 2021-Income Tax 24/05/2021) ♦ CBDT notifies Rule 11UAE Computation of Fair Market Value of Capital Assets for the purposes of section 50B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Notification No.68/2021 [G.S.R. 338(E)] 24/05/2021) ♦ CBDT […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling on Anusmriti Sarkar vs ITO case. Analysis of LTCG from Kailash Auto Finance Scrip, added without independent verification. Get insights into key decisions.
In present facts of the case, there were issues pertaining to disallowance under Section 40A(3); disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D; short deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia); undisclosed sales/difference in stock valuations and deduction u/s 80IB (11A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these issues have gone into the favour of the Appellant/ Assessee, most of them were covered by the Assessee’s own previous case serving best precedents.
Vodafone India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Where assesse engaged in business of providing mobile telephone services, sold prepaid vouchers to its distributors at a rate lower than its face value, difference between face value and selling price of prepaid voucher could not be regarded as commission requiring deduction of tax at source under section […]
