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...
Compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) as the provisions of section 10(37) deal with ‘compensation’ only and not interest on compensation or enhanced compensation.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 326 days in filing quantum appeal and delay of 1 day in filing penalty appeal as assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in case of two contrary decision by non-jurisdictional High Courts, decision favourable to the assessee shall apply. Thus, order of CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act upheld.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 269D and 269E of the Income Tax Act without clear finding along with authentic evidence that provisions of section 269SS and 269T are violated is unsustainable.
The Supreme Court clarifies which High Court has jurisdiction over ITAT appeals, addressing confusion and ensuring consistency in India’s tax litigation process.
ITAT Delhi remands case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to lack of physical notice before ex-parte decision on unexplained investment.
However, the completed/unabated assessments could be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 and those powers were saved.
ITAT Delhi held that cost to cost reimbursement on account of secondment of employees cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Article 12 of India USA-DTAA. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed exempt income. Thus, disallowance u/s. 14A restricted to the extent of exempt income.
ITAT Ranchi held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution without deciding the matter on merits is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remanded back for de novo adjudication.
