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 Mumbai follows Hexaware Technologies ruling, quashing reassessment for Purohit Food Products due to invalid notice beyond legal limit.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that delayed filing of Form 10/10B is not fatal to claiming Section 11 exemption, as long as form is available before processing under Section 143(1). Appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi directs the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the case of Puneet Utreja. The Tribunal ruled that the explanation on Term Deposit maturity and redemption was adequate.
ITAT Delhi remands case to CIT(A) for ex-parte decision on unexplained cash credits, ignoring adjournment request filed via email. Case set for de-novo hearing.
ITAT Delhi removes addition of ₹2.9 Cr by AO in property transaction under Section 69A. CIT(A) accepts purchase and sale documents. Read the full judgment.
ITAT Mumbai grants partial relief to Ramniklal & Sons in the bogus purchase case, directing reassessment based on judicial precedents.
PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263 was unjustified if PCIT failed to demonstrate how the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue
The difference in the fair market value and the issue price of compulsory convertible preference shares was only 0.65%, therefore as per Rule 11UA issue price was deemed to be fair market value and hence no scope for addition required to be made u/s. 56(2)(viib).
ITAT Bangalore held that addition u/s. 69A unjustified as cash deposited in bank account is from business income and the same is already considered under the Profits & gains of business or profession.
ITAT Delhi held that issue relating to allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee is debatable and it is well settled law that rectification provision u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the issue is debatable.
