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...
Visakhapatnam ITAT ruled against depreciation claims for uninstalled machinery by ACIT vs Mithra Kyokuto, citing lack of operational evidence for A.Y. 2012-13.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax rate u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable only with effect from 1st April 2017 and not prior to the same. Hence, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) for proper verification of quantum of External Development Charges (EDC) for demand of tax under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Denial of registration under section 12AB to a trust engaged in fund-raising activities was not correct as one-time fund raising programme carried out by assessee-trust was not an organized activities in the nature of business akin to selling of lottery tickets.
CIT(A) without looking into the merits of the case and detailed submissions filed by assessee also without considering the CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thus for the casual attitude of the Revenue in dismissing the appeal twice was liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the assessee to meet the ends of justice.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT directed the CPC to consider the due date as extended by the CBDT for the purpose of claim of exemption under section 11 & 12 of the IT Act. Assessee, being a society, filed its ITR for AY 2018- 19 after due date on 29.10.2018 along with audit re-port. Due to which exemption u/s 11 & 12 was denied by CPC.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored the matter back to AO for fresh adjudication but imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 for lack of diligence during assessment and appellate proceedings on the part of the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that transfer of case of the assessee would not be permissible to another Assessing Officer without a decentralization order or transfer order under Section 127 of the Act is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdictional error.
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that PCIT is wrong in concluding that return filed u/s 44AD did not envisage the maintenance of any Books of Accounts. Section 68 can be invoked only if there is any entry in the Books of Accounts.
