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...
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization confirmed by both AO and CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order. However, majority of cash deposits are prior to demonetization period. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh verification.
Assessee was engaged in the business of slimming and beauty services. During assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee was carrying substantial credit balances as current liabilities under the head ‘Advance from customers’.
ITAT Surat held that when any expense is not claimed, no disallowance is permissible. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 43B on account of unpaid service tax not warranted as the same is not claimed as deduction in P&L account.
However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued and therefore, AO completed the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 as best judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and passed the assessment order.
ITAT Delhi held that reasons recorded for exercising the jurisdiction is plagued with several defects of critical nature. Thus, due to lack of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act reassessment proceedings held as bad-in-law.
ITAT Jaipur reviews Vimla Devi Agrotech Ltd.’s penalty appeal for non-maintenance of accounts under section 271B of the IT Act, highlighting procedural errors.
ITAT Jaipur allowed Naval Kishore’s appeal, ruling that no additions could be made under Section 153A, as no incriminating material was found during the search.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan sustained as creditworthiness of the lender not proved. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee dismissed.
Once CESTAT had given a findings that the purchases in question were not bogus, then, additions proposed to be made on the basis of show-cause notice from Central Excise Directorate had no basis which the same could be sustained.
