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 Tribunal observed that the trust had eventually filed Form 10 and sought condonation of delay. Since the issue was pending before the competent authority, the exemption dispute was restored for reconsideration.
ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB cannot be rejected merely because the Assessing Officer or Range Head did not recommend approval. The CIT(E) must independently examine the trust’s objects, activities, and legal compliance before arriving at a decision.
The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for taking a contrary stand in later years after allowing the same deduction on identical facts in an earlier assessment. It held that such inconsistent treatment without distinguishing facts was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a bank guarantee wrongly reported as a contingent liability in the tax audit report could not be added to income when it was not claimed as an expense. It directed deletion of the ₹9.41 lakh addition made on the basis of the reporting error.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening contained incorrect figures and unsupported assumptions. It held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that a trust’s application for regular registration could not be rejected solely because the wrong clause was selected in the prescribed form. It directed the authority to treat the application under the correct provision and decide it on merits.
The case involved additions for alleged on-money in Godhavi land transactions based on a handwritten loose sheet. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh consideration, highlighting issues relating to evidence and assessment findings.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The revision order was quashed for travelling beyond the scope of the proceedings.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal after a rectification order under Section 154 granted the deduction under Section 80P and corrected the assessed income. The dispute no longer survived for adjudication.
The ITAT held that deduction under Section 80P could not be disallowed through a unilateral adjustment under Section 143(1) without providing notice and an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed.
