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Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remands appeal after delay caused by FAA notice sent to outdated email, directing fresh review and updated contact ...
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 : 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...
Parle Hindu Devalaya Mandal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The dispute in the present appeal is confined to denial of assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a charitable trust and has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act. For the assessment year under dispute, […]
Since there was no material available before AO that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69.
Addition by AO under section 41(1) as liability of ‘Trade Payables’ written off was not justified as the balance-sheets filed by assessee were neither signed by the Auditor nor by the Director and, therefore, the same were not reliable and assessee had failed to produce any confirmation to the effect that the assessee received payment from M/s. O as interest free unsecured loan.
Service of notice upon a dead person under section 142(1) would not authorise him to assume jurisdiction to pass assessment order on the L/Rs. also.
Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of 2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on wrong footing that the same would be personal expenditure and hence, disallowable completely overlooking the fact that the said expenditure has never been claimed by the assessee anywhere while computing […]
HLG Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income […]
Akshaya Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in re-opening of assessment based on the same material on which he relied at the time of assessment u/s 143(3)? The assessee is a co-operative engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its […]
Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We are of the considered view that firstly, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS as the payment of EDC was not made out of any statutory and contractual liability to HUDA with whom the assessee has no privity of contract; secondly, the assessee has reasonable […]
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have noted that the hearing of stay petition was concluded, as per information available to us, on 17th January 2020, but the order thereon has not been passed as yet since one of the Members constituting coram of the bench has gone on tour to Delhi […]
Undisputedly, the assessee has obtained the tax audit report on 10th September 2013, i.e., much before the due date of filing of return of income. However, as stated by the assessee, due to lack of clarity and misinterpretation of the Circular issued by the Board, the assessee did not filed tax audit report before the due date of return of income. In our view, the aforesaid explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible, therefore, benefit of doubt can be given to the assessee
