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 Mumbai sets aside CIT(A)’s ex-parte order in Gurpreet Singh Rajput’s case, allowing reassessment after providing the assessee another hearing opportunity.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessee has sufficient amount of interest free fund to make investment yielding exempt income, therefore, disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Assessee contended that there was no violation of provisions of sec.269T since the security deposits were obtained through banking channels and were only adjusted towards the outstanding dues.
ITAT Jaipur ruled on addition of ₹1.75 crore as unexplained credit in ITO Vs Kedia Builders. The tribunal highlighted compliance with Section 68 requirements.
ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of assessee in Poonam Ramesh Sahajwani vs ITO case, applying Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to consider stamp duty value on agreement date.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 36(1)(va) delayed payment of PF & ESIC has to be treated as income of the assessee. Hence, alternate claim of deduction of the same u/s. 37(1) of the Act is not acceptable.
ITAT Chennai held that PCIT cannot term order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely for non-production of Form 3CL for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
An employee should be employed for 300 days or more during the previous year should be applied cumulatively across the year of hiring and the following year, rather than restricting it to the first year.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment against CLE Private Limited, ruling notice issued beyond TOLA’s limitation period is invalid.
