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...
ITAT Chennai held once the AO has conducted inquiry, examined replies and adopted a legally sustainable view, the same cannot be treated as erroneous. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that cash payments for land purchase cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if not claimed as expenditure. Since the amount was capital in nature, the addition was deleted. The ruling clarifies the scope of disallowance provisions.
The Tribunal held that filing return after due date does not disqualify deduction under section 80P for AYs prior to 2018. It ruled that denial on this ground was incorrect and required rectification.
The case involved Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(d for failure to comply with notices during assessment. The Tribunal ruled that completion under section 143(3) negates the basis for penalty.
The Tribunal examined denial of rebate due to technical computation issues. It held that deduction must be granted as income was below ₹7 lakh and statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on third-party software data was invalid as the material was not provided to the assessee. Denial of cross-examination was found to violate principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid without proving both error and revenue prejudice. The AO’s order was restored as valid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are revenue items, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The case involved an addition based on AIR information regarding a property transaction. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the assessee’s documentary evidence remained unchallenged by the department.
The tribunal held that the safe harbour limit applies to valuation determined by the DVO, not just stamp duty value. It ruled in favour of the assessee as the variation was within 10%.
