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 Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of Section 10AA addition and holding no other issue could be added in ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted addition on interest from overseas branches, allowed hub expenses and upheld deductions including broken perio...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi partly allowed the assessee’s appeals and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in Section 263 revision and related assess...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted Section 11 disallowance and allowed exemption claims, holding denial under Section 13 is restricted to the exte...
Income Tax : ITAT Cochin quashed Section 148 reassessment for AY 2015-16, holding the notice time-barred under Section 149 despite Section 148A...
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 Surat held that in absence of any corroborative evidence with regard to payment of amount mentioned in sauda chitti, assessee is not entitled to claim enhanced cost of acquisition and hence appeal of the assessee dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional claim of deduction of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act filed during the course of assessment other than filing a revised return is allowable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice for re-assessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on a non-existing entity i.e. merged entity is void ab initio and hence is liable to be quashed.
Among the documents seized contained information pertaining to the Assessee and AO recorded his satisfaction that those documents have bearing on the determination of total income of the Assessee.
The matter was remanded back to AO to review the non-taxability of interest from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) as part of the Corpus Fund under Section 11(1)(d) and and the decision of CIT(E) in respect of the condonation application in filing Form 10B belatedly.
Assessee claimed to have submitted details / documents / explanation as required by AO for the purpose of assessment in the case of assessee under section 143(3) during the course of assessment proceedings.
The assessee earned income from selling milk and filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.1,78,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”.
Before ITAT it was submitted that AO determined the total income/revised income as Rs.12,84,93,150/-. Thus the assessed income is lesser than the returned income of Rs.13.30 crores.
Assessee has not violated the provision of the Act u/s 271B as the assessee has Audited his accounts as per the provisions of section 44AB within the stipulated time but only filed the same belatedly.
Case was reopened after recording proper reason. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022, wherein addition of Rs.1 Crore was made in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property.
