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 upheld deletion of ₹1.14 crore Section 69C addition as it was based only on third-party statements without corroborati...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held delayed filing of Form 67 is not a ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 where foreign income and ta...
Income Tax : Gains arising from sale of strategic investments, promoter holdings, unlisted shares and similar long-term capital assets held by ...
Income Tax : Transfer of electricity from eligible captive power units to non-eligible units was to be valued at the tariff charged by State El...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad upheld the excess cash addition and Section 153D approval, while remanding the stock shortage addition for fresh ex...
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 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.
The Tribunal held that prior to the 2023 amendment, returns filed within the broader time under Section 139 were eligible for exemption. It ruled that updated returns could not be denied benefits retrospectively.
The tribunal held that selling only open land, even if earlier part of a residential property, does not qualify as transfer of a residential house. Since no building was sold, exemption under Section 54 was rightly denied.
The case examined validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond statutory limits. The ITAT held the notice invalid as it exceeded the permissible time period. It reinforces strict compliance with limitation provisions.
