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 Bangalore held that when the reasons supplied to the assessee and the reasons supplied before higher forum is not verbatim same, it cannot sustain the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue since the tax effect involved in the same is less than prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs in terms of the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of entity from which share application money is received.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards entire cash deposits during demonetization period by passing ex-parte order due to non-compliance by assessee without examining on merits unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for fresh examination.
The present appeal is preferred by the revenue. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting addition made by the AO towards unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act in respect of trade payable settled outside books of accounts.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
ITAT Mumbai held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount while computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be included. Thus, issue decided in favour of assessee.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions made under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act by considering the stamp duty value on the date of registration of agreement as prescribed under section 43CA(3) of the Income Tax Act.
We have to examine delay as excessive or inordinate based on whether there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time by the assessee and in our view when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor.
