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 addressed disallowance of employee contributions deposited beyond prescribed timelines. The Tribunal upheld the legal position but directed verification of actual compliance with statutory due dates.
The case examined whether delayed employee contributions could be disallowed under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held such adjustments invalid on debatable issues and ordered deletion of the addition.
The case involved disallowance of employee contributions during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable issues cannot be adjusted under Section 143(1) and deleted the addition.
The case involved disallowance of employee contributions during return processing. The Tribunal held such adjustments invalid on debatable issues and directed deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that unsigned sanction for reopening invalidates the entire reassessment. It ruled that absence of signature violates mandatory legal requirements under tax law.
The relocation did not lead to structural enhancement of business assets. The Tribunal ruled that such expenses remain in the revenue field. The decision distinguishes between operational and capital expenditure.
The Tribunal accepted the delay caused by representative’s illness as sufficient reason and admitted the appeal. It found that the authority failed to properly assess genuineness of activities. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that interest on tax arrears is compensatory, not penal. It ruled that such interest qualifies as a deductible business expense.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income should be taxed as business income, not as unexplained investment under special provisions.
The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to specify the exact limb of misreporting renders the penalty unsustainable.
