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 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 : ITAT Mumbai deleted addition on interest from overseas branches, allowed hub expenses and upheld deductions including broken perio...
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...
Held that in the instant case the time limit for passing order u/s 201(1) of the Act pertaining to financial year 2010-11 where a statement u/s 200 of the Act has been filed was two years from the end of the financial year in which such statement was filed.
The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 03-07-2015 determining total income of Rs. 11,70,590/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings initiated and order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed on 28-032022 by accepting the returned income.
ITAT Lucknow quashes penalty u/s 271B for failure to file audit report, stating incorrect grounds for penalty initiation.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since AO has not made any independent investigation of fact. Accordingly, ad hoc disallowance @10% upheld to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO has held that based on CBDT circular no. 452 it is clear that Kaccha Arahtias turnover includes only the gross commission and not the sales effected on behalf of their principals.
The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
The assessee filed three appeals against order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14. It is important to note that inspite of putting up the case of hearing several times, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Deepak Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar and others, group of cases based at Delhi.
The present appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging quashing of the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. Revenue has mainly contested that CIT (A) has quashed the notices on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
