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 Mumbai dismisses income tax additions for AY 2014-15, stating reliance on a generalized report without independent inquiry is...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholds CIT(A) decision to delete addition of interest income from fixed deposits in Evita...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune sends case back to CIT(A) after hearing notices sent to registered email went unnoticed, leading to non-appearance by th...
Income Tax : ITAT restores case to CIT(A) as incorrect filing date led to faulty judgment in Emerald Mining Pvt. Ltd. tax dispute....
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT rules that the requirement of filing Form 10B is procedural, allowing Section 11 exemption for an educational trust des...
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...
Ayushi Patni Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Whether the assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 54F in respect of residential flat / house for which the assessee has entered into an agreement for purchase more than one year before the date of transfer of capital asset? The dates qua, transfer of capital asset, execution of […]
Grants/Financial Assistance received by assessee, a Government Company, from the State Government for Development of Coal Block/Mines – Grants/Financial Assistance received from Mineral Development Fund (MDF) under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Fund Act r.w. Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Fund Rules towards Capital Outlays or incurment of capital expenditure would be in the nature of capital receipts not chargeable to tax
Assessee is a corporation of the Chhattisgarh Government and has received subsidies for opening a mine. Assessee treated the said subsidy as ‘capital receipt’, however, department contended it to be ‘revenue receipt’.
Since final consideration was paid and the possession of flat was received within a period of one year prior to the date of transfer of capital asset, then the same should be considered as the date of purchase, so as to allow the benefit of deduction under section 54F to assessee.
Armoury International Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, the assessee was observed to have made bogus purchases as per information received from the Sales Tax Department. The assessee was issued notice u/s. 148 on 11.03.2013 served on 12.03.2013. The assessee filed revised return of income on 15.03.2013, wherein the amount of bogus purchase was offered […]
As assessee had duly proved source of cash deposit in her bank account to be opening cash balance and gift from her parents, no addition could be made under section 68.
Shree Vimalnath Jain Swetamber Mandir Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Raipur) We find that the learned Commissioner (Exemption) has refused registration under section 12AA of the Act to the assessee since donations received were not properly accounted for and also because that the objects of the Trust was for betterment of Jain Community and for benefit […]
Nikhil Chandra Mitra Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Disallowance of Rs.60,000/- made on account of accounting charges by invoking the provisions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submits that the person whom the amount was paid was not a qualified professional and he was an accountant writing the accounts and hence 194J of the Act, […]
Since assessee had brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares were genuine and AO had brought nothing controverting material to deny the same, therefore, the long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. KAFL claimed as exempt by assessee could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of investigation wing.
Prabhudas Liladhar P. Ltd. Case: Once The Whole Basis Of Addition Itself As Made By The AO In Quantum Has Been Deleted By The Tribunal And Expenses Were Related To The Business Penalty Levied By The AO Under Section 271(1)(c) Deleted
