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 : Article examines whether the MLI Principal Purpose Test has domestic effect under Section 90(1) following Nestlé SA and Sky High ...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : ITAT held that delayed filing of Form 10B cannot defeat Section 11 exemption if the audit report is available before processing un...
Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held Section 2(47)(v) inapplicable as the JDA did not satisfy Section 53A conditions, deleting capital gains for AY...
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 : ITAT Chennai deleted an addition of ₹17.10 lakh after holding that it was based solely on third-party information and estimated ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai upheld taxation of only 25% profit on alleged on-money receipts, rejected Section 69C addition of entire amount and su...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT restored Section 12AA registration, holding uncorroborated capitation fee allegations alone cannot justify cancellati...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT held that seized Tally data alone cannot justify bogus purchase additions without corroborative evidence, while susta...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of Section 10AA addition and holding no other issue could be added in ...
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...
ITAT Ahmedabad remands case on unexplained investments of ₹18.19L in land & shares. Tribunal directs re-examination by AO after Assessee presents evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of Foreign Tax Credit [FTC] on the ground that corresponding income has not been offered for tax in the year under appeal is not justifiable. Accordingly, FTC allowed.
ITAT Kolkata addresses procedural lapses in Suryadeo Prasad Vs. ITO, highlighting the need for a speaking order and adherence to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
On appeal CIT (A) held that disallowance u/s 10AA can be made only when the total income is enhanced by the AO or TPO. Co-ordinate bench has already decided this issue for AY 2014-15 and disallowance u/s 10AA was deleted.
CIT(E) was not justified in denying assessee’s applications for final registration u/s 12AB / final approval u/s 80G as assessee had done only charitable activities till now and not undertaken any activity contemplated by object No. 2 & 3.
An amendment to the agreement on September 24, 2014, revised the terms of consideration. Assessee argued that possession of the property was never transferred as evidenced by ownership documents like the 7/12 extract and electricity bills.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on grounds other than grounds forming part of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment not justified. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained investment which didn’t form part of reasons liable to be deleted.
ITAT Pune held that addition toward unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted since assessee inadvertently mentioned ‘commission expense’ instead of actual ‘construction expenses. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not justified since loan transactions were done through banking channels and loans were repaid in short period. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash deposits rightly deleted since it is already part of the turnover of the business. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
