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...
Simar Kaur Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) It is seen that the assessee has consistently maintained its challenge that notice was not issued as it has not been served. The tax authorities have rejected the challenge holding that non-receipt is not equivalent to non-service. It is seen that though the challenge is recorded the wording in […]
Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) From the reasons it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not specific as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of 1 crore has escaped assessment. In fact, in one para […]
Galaxy Surfactants Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Once an Assessing Officer prepares a draft assessment order, that is the end of his domain of powers so far as framing of assessment is concerned- unless of course there are any directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel which are required to be implemented by the Assessing Officer. […]
DLF Universal Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld AO has applied 0.5% of investment of Rs. 53.51 crores whereas the ld CIT(A) restricting 0.5% only Rs. 30.84 holding that balance investment of approximately Rs. 22 crores was made in the subsidiary companies and there was no intention of earning any dividend income. The ld CIT(A) […]
Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case before us, the assessee had offered its entire income including income by way of winnings from lotteries on unsold lottery tickets, as income chargeable under the head ―Profits and gains of business or profession“. However, the ld PCIT had sought to treat the income […]
ACIT Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Delhi) > HELD THAT:- In the present assessee’s case, search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2009 in the premises of Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act […]
Ganpati Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sar Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The contention of Ld. AR that a Review petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Tasgaon SSK Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 420 (SC) which is still pending and hence the decision […]
Ropar Properties And Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) To convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny, the Assessing Officer shall be required to form a reasonable view that there is a possibility of under statement of income and that view should be based on credible material or information available on record and such […]
Bajaj Sons Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) We find that a separate surrender of Rs. 97.11 lacs has been made by Shri SB Bajaj Director of the assessee company on account of unexplained cash found during the search action. However, so far as the surrender of Rs. 15 lac to cover any discrepancy is concerned, […]
Merely saying that `loan had been advanced’ or `ITR had not been filed’, without disclosing the reasons, which led AO to hold such a belief , did not confer valid jurisdiction on the AO to take action u/s 147 and 148.
