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 Pune upheld deletion of ₹1.14 crore Section 69C addition as it was based only on third-party statements without corroborati...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held delayed filing of Form 67 is not a ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 where foreign income and ta...
Income Tax : Gains arising from sale of strategic investments, promoter holdings, unlisted shares and similar long-term capital assets held by ...
Income Tax : Transfer of electricity from eligible captive power units to non-eligible units was to be valued at the tariff charged by State El...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad upheld the excess cash addition and Section 153D approval, while remanding the stock shortage addition for fresh ex...
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 Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a ₹14.20 crore addition under Section 68, holding that the AO relied on old search findings and failed to bring any direct evidence against the assessee’s loan transactions.
The Tribunal ruled that disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was beyond the permissible scope of prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1). Relief was granted to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that high sea sales could not be treated as non-genuine where customs approvals, sale agreements, and delivery records established the transactions. The Tribunal deleted the ₹59.11 crore addition and ruled that Section 68 could not apply to recovery of sale consideration.
The Tribunal held that a genuine and reasonable explanation for delay justified condonation of nearly three years. It emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations when no mala fide intent is established.
The assessee sought deduction for property tax paid during the relevant financial year but failed to claim it in the return. The ITAT granted another opportunity and ordered verification of the claim on merits.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the primary burden under Section 68 by producing complete documentary evidence regarding the lender and the loan transaction. The addition was deleted because the Revenue failed to disprove the evidence.
The assessee contended that cash deposits in the bank account represented sales proceeds from a medicine business. The ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify turnover details and determine taxable income on a reasonable basis.
The Pune ITAT held that estimating net profit at 18% of contract receipts was excessive in the absence of supporting material. Applying principles similar to presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, the Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 8% and granted substantial relief.
The ITAT held that Section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked where the assessee had not made the rent payments referred to in the tax audit report. The addition was traced to an inadvertent reporting error by the auditor.
The Tribunal ruled that a notice issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year requires sanction from the authority prescribed under Section 151. Since approval was obtained from the wrong authority, the reassessment proceedings were held to be illegal.
