Category: ITAT

Order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable before the Tribunal In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that an order passed by the Commissioner under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is an administrative order; therefore, the same is not appealable before the Tribunal. …

Exemption u/s 54F can not be denied merely because assessee did not deposit net sale consideration in capital gain account  In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that exemption u/s 54F can not be denied merely because assessee did not deposit net sale consideration in capital gain …

Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) deleted in absence of DVO’s report where the building on the land purchased was 30 years old In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai deleted addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) as there was no DVO’s report as on the date of impugned order and the subject building was …

No addition u/s 69A can be made for cash deposit in bank when the alleged bank accounts were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Agra quashed addition made under section 69A for cash deposit in the bank …

Benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied, only because assessee misplaced and could not produce registration certificate issued u/s 12AA – ITAT  In a recent judgment, ITAT Jaipur held that benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied only because assessee could not place on record registration …

ITAT condoned delay of 346 days observing law and provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. In a recent judgment, ITAT Rajkot condoned the delay of 346 days in filing appeal observing that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot …

No fault in invoking Revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 to direct AO to issue correct penalty notice by modifying the reassessment order – ITAT  In a recent judgment, ITAT Ahmadabad has held that the revisionary jurisdiction invoked u/s 263 by directing the Assessing Officer to issue correct penalty notice …

Agricultural land cannot be taken out of the purview of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which uses the term “immovable property”.  In a recent judgment, ITAT Ahmedabad has held that agricultural land cannot be taken out of the purview of section 56(2)(x) of …

Unless it is shown that money withdrawn from bank was utilized for some other purpose, no addition can be made merely because there was a time gap between a withdrawal and re-deposit of money In a recent judgment, the ITAT Allahabad has held that unless the Revenue can …

Onus lies on assessee to prove amount received from clients towards expenses were actually expended for the purpose intended. In a recent judgment, the ITAT Delhi has upheld that for amount received from clients towards expenses reimbursement, onus lies on assessee to prove that the expenses were wholly …