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 : ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the i...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revea...
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 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 Ahmedabad upheld ₹70.95 lakh addition under Section 69A due to unexplained cash deposits during demonetization and non-compliance by the assessee.
Kaydee Foundation Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Form 10B as a procedural requirement, liable to condonation in certain circumstances where delays were due to inadvertent errors or technical issues.
Delhi High Court reviewed the disallowance of ₹7.77 crore royalty expense in AY 2016-17, addressing revenue recognition and matching concepts in income tax appeals.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of cash payment under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act deleted since genuineness of the transactions and the payment and identity of the receiver are established. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of diamond by cutting and polishing of rough diamond and sale thereof. During assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee has made 20 transactions of foreign remittance.
In the instant case, assessee had not filed any return within stipulated time framed u/s 139(1), but had filed the return u/s 139(8A) (updated return) on 31.03.2023 along with Form 67 filed online on the said date claiming FTC.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not imposable for acceptance of cash on transfer of agricultural land as non-compliance with section 269SS of the Income Tax Act was due to bonafide belief.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee duly established identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions.
Filing of Form 10CCB required for claiming deductions under Section 80IA before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) was only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration.
Assessee, aggrieved by the decision, appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of AO. Assessee dissatisfied with the order of CIT(A) appealed before Tribunal.
