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 a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-belie...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted additions exceeding ₹10.57 crore made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) after finding that the Assessing Officer w...
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 Tribunal ruled that an assessee following mercantile accounting must offer interest income to tax on accrual basis, irrespecti...
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 : 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 Pune rules Form 10B filing not mandatory for Section 11/12 exemption claims, citing Gujarat High Court precedent, remands case for fresh assessment.
ITAT Pune allows patent drafting & translation expenses as revenue expenditure u/s 37, overturning lower authority’s capital expense classification.
ITAT Mumbai rules PCIT’s revision under Section 263 as erroneous. The tribunal holds non-initiation of penalty proceedings cannot justify revision. Read full case details.
DCIT Vs Meridian Chem Bond Private Limited (ITAT Pune) Does Proving the Three Main Ingredients by Assessee U/S 68 Shift the Burden of Proof On AO? Assessee is a company that duly files its return of income. The Revenue carried a search in case of another group concern & it was discovered that it was […]
ITAT Bangalore sets aside ex-parte order against senior citizen, ruling that email-only notices denied a fair hearing. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Kolkata rules on Islampur C.S. Shop 2 vs ITO, addressing cash deposits during demonetization and Section 69A addition. Read the tribunal’s key findings.
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice during the Covid-19 pandemic was deleted due to disruptions caused by lockdowns during outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation periods.
Since CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without addressing key issues raised against the assessment order, therefore, the matter was remanded back to CIT(A) as CIT(A) should have examined this issue by reviewing the assessment records.
ITAT Delhi affirms PCIT’s order under Section 263, ruling AO’s assessment erroneous & prejudicial to revenue. Key precedents cited include Ghanshyam HUF & Sham Lal Narula.
ACIT vs Prashant Prakash Nilawar case where ITAT Mumbai dismissed Rs. 17 Cr addition based on WhatsApp messages without concrete evidence. Understand judicial precedents cited.
