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 restored the Section 10(10AA) leave encashment claim to the AO only for verification of the quantum based on supporting ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted the DAPE-based business income addition where the Indian AE was at arm's length and remanded the refund int...
Income Tax : Hyderabad ITAT quashed Section 148 reassessment, holding actual escaped income below ₹50 lakh cannot justify extended limitation...
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 : 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 Delhi held that addition under section 69A r.w.s. cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that expense incurred by holding company on behalf of subsidiary company which is not in the nature of loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest due to delayed payment of custom duty is deductible u/s 37 of the Act as it is an accretion to the main payment and not a penalty and accordingly allowable as deduction.
Held that the cash deposits are made out of the sale proceeds of the assessee and in my opinion the assessee has properly explained the source of the cash deposits along with documentary evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely taking second opinion unjustified. Further, view taken by AO cannot be set aside or deferred as per provisions of section 263.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in statement of profit & loss account.
ITAT Surat held that considering the veracity of evidence, additional evidence filed by the assessee is essential and has direct bearing on all the additions/ disallowance, hence, all the additional evidence are taken on record. Accordingly, matter restored back.
ITAT Kolkata held that allotment letter given by the developer to the assessee way back in 2010 would be construed as an agreement of purchase between the developer and the assessee. Thus, addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act not survived.
AO without going through the terms and conditions of each of the project that had been undertaken by assessee during the year had come to the conclusion that assessee was a works contractor and not a developer.
Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
