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...
The assessee filed his return of Income on 27.08.2019. After filing the return, assessee received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 23.03.2021 and found that relief under section 90 of the Act had not been allowed amounting to Rs 73,658/-.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of 1809 days in filing of an appeal condoned since reasonable cause shown for the delay. Accordingly, appeal allowed and AO directed to allow Foreign Tax Credit after due verification of Form 67.
ITAT Surat held that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) is not deliberate or intentional or due to gross negligence on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, delay of more than 2 years condoned and matter remanded back to CIT(A).
ITAT Chennai held that only peak credit to be considered and no further addition to be made in case of circular transaction since bank account of appellant’s father duly considered for the purpose of calculating peak credit in the hands of assessee.
Without purchases, there would have been no sales. AO’s claim of inflated purchases to reduce tax liability was not substantiated, as all 10 transactions of diamond purchase and sale were documented with relevant details.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 238,85,10,090/-.
Thus, penalty is not warranted on issues where a substantial question of law exists, indicating that the matter is not free from doubt. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
The AO added excise duty and sales tax to the total turnover while excluding lease rent and other incomes, categorizing them as “Income from Other Sources” rather than “Business Income”.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposable even in case of voluntary disclosure or declaration or surrender per se of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue allowed.
