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 cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
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 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 : The Tribunal ruled that additions proposed by CPC under Section 143(1)(a) ceased to survive after the Assessing Officer deleted th...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai ruled that replacing projected cash flows with actual profits while applying the DCF method is legally impermissible. ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent verifica...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld tax addition where agricultural land was acquired below stamp duty valuation and DVO-determined fair market va...
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 Mumbai held that trade advances, being in the nature of commercial transaction, would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and therefore the addition made by the AO is deleted. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Additions under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible evidence to prove the alleged cash loan.
Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
Thereafter, there was change in incumbent and fresh opportunity was provided and notice u/s.142(1) was issued. But this notice was returned back with the remarks that “the assessee was not in given address”.
To ensure fairness, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This decision was made contingent upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department within one month and providing proof of payment.
ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the AO an opportunity under Rule 46A(3) to examine the new evidence submitted by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai remands case of Sandeep Singh Karhail vs Girish Agrawal for fresh hearing, citing lack of opportunity and procedural lapses in reassessment.
Araadhya Jain Trust Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Whether surcharge is applicable at respective surcharge slab rate or at maximum surcharge rate in case of the Private Discretionary Trust? In a significant ruling that brings clarity to taxation of Private Discretionary Trusts, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Special Bench has held that surcharge on such […]
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by treating LTCG as bogus merely on the basis of assumption and conjecture is not sustainable in law since purchase and sale of shares were made via banking channel.
ITAT Mumbai rules in Farhat Yusuf Shaikh case—book entries and AIR data alone not enough to justify additions under Sections 68 and 69 of the IT Act.
