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 allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest and dividend income from co-operative bank deposits, setting as...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest from deposits with co-operative and scheduled banks, following ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from deposits with co-operative and sched...
Income Tax : Hyderabad ITAT upheld capital gains on a registered sale deed but remanded LTCG computation for fresh verification of the cost of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on dividend from co-operative banks, following coordinate bench decisions for ...
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 case involved additions based on seized diaries, alleged cash sales, and estimated profits. The ITAT partly accepted the assessee’s arguments and directed adoption of a revised industry GP rate for computing taxable income.
Eempt income, which were disallowed under Section 14A could not be automatically added back to compute the book profit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB without pinpointing real, actual expenditures recorded in the books of accounts by tax authorities that possess a direct nexus with the tax-free earnings.
ITAT Agra held that reopening beyond three years under Section 149 was invalid because the final escapement of income determined by the Assessing Officer was only Rs.27 lakh. The statutory threshold of Rs.50 lakh was therefore not satisfied.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that outstanding sundry creditors could not be treated as unexplained cash credits when the assessee demonstrated subsequent repayment through banking transactions. The Tribunal found the Revenue’s partial acceptance of the same transactions inconsistent.
ITAT Bangalore held that sale of 25 plots did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade because the properties were held for six years as investments. The Tribunal ruled that mere multiplicity of plots sold cannot by itself convert capital gains into business income.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership alone cannot restrict Section 54 deduction where the entire source of investment for the new residential property originated from the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that under-reported income must be calculated as the difference between assessed income and income processed under Section 143(1)(a). Penalty computation was sent back for recomputation due to incorrect methodology adopted by the AO.
The Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
The Tribunal observed that delays in completion of housing projects by builders cannot deprive a taxpayer of Section 54 benefits when the investment was made within the prescribed time. Deduction was allowed despite non-delivery of possession.
ITAT Delhi held that additions based on documents seized from a third party cannot be made under Section 143(3) without invoking reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the assessment for non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards.
