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...
Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Punit Construction Company has held that in terms of provisions of sub Section 5 of Section 80 IA, deduction has to be given unit wise without considering profit or loss of other eligible units.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that self-assessment tax paid by the assessee losses its character as self-assessment tax once it got adjusted against the tax liability determined in regular assessment.
The assessee is an educational institution established on 17.08.1976 by Act 43 of the 1976 of Andhra Pradesh State Legislature Act and Governed by Act 4 of Andhra Pradesh Universities Act 1991.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that on verification of the return of income for the A.Y 2015-16, it was seen that the opening stock was shown at Rs.17,98,60,568/-, whereas the closing stock as per the return filed for the A.Y 2014-15 was nil.
The onus was on assessee to demonstrate the extent of such assets which could be explained as having been acquired through funds which had been disclosed to the Department.
Section 36(1)(vii) of ITA applied separately to non-rural debts, while Section 36(1)(viia) of the tax statute only applied to rural debts, making it clear that banks were entitled to claim both deductions, provided they pertained to different types of advances.
ITAT Bangalore allows appeal for Saraswathi M Khjuri, remanding the case for fresh adjudication due to communication errors and procedural concerns in the assessment process.
ITAT Delhi held that error of bringing an amount of Rs.12,10,692/- to tax instead of the undisclosed amount of Rs.27,00,00,000/- is assessment made without proper enquiry and hence assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue so revision order u/s. 263 sustained.
Held that reserve arising out of amalgamation is capital in nature and cannot be treated as revenue under the ambit of section 28(iv) of the Act. CIT (A) is correct in holding that capital reserve cannot be treated as an Income u/s 28(iv) of the Act.
ITAT Surat held that if the order passed in the original proceeding itself is illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings. Thus, revision order u/s. 263 quashed as order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B is invalid.
