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 Hyderabad upheld the excess cash addition and Section 153D approval, while remanding the stock shortage addition for fresh ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad deleted a Section 69 addition after finding the mother's identity, funds and gift confirmation established the sour...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT deleted the Section 271D penalty, holding temporary cash received to demonstrate visa funds was not a loan attracting...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT upheld deletion of a Section 69A addition, holding that cash withdrawals from the assessee's own bank account could n...
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 : 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 Tribunal upheld reopening under Section 147 as Form 26AS reflected substantial contract receipts despite no return being filed. It ruled that such information constitutes valid grounds for belief of income escaping assessment.
The issue was deletion of additions on unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. The tribunal upheld deletion, holding that a favourable remand report confirming genuineness and creditworthiness weakens the Revenue’s case.
The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, imposing cost for non-compliance.
The issue was addition of deemed dividend under search assessment. The tribunal held that without incriminating material, additions in completed assessments are unsustainable.
The issue was whether a long delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The tribunal held that absence of credible explanation bars condonation, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The issue was denial of capital gains exemption due to claim under wrong section. The tribunal held that a genuine claim cannot be rejected merely for citing an incorrect provision and remanded the case.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting can be imposed without specifying the applicable clause. The tribunal held such penalty invalid and ordered its deletion.
The issue was whether reassessment notice issued without approval from the correct authority is valid. The tribunal held it invalid and quashed the assessment for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal held that no late fee under Section 234E can be imposed for periods prior to 1 June 2015 due to absence of enabling provisions in Section 200A. The levy was deleted following consistent judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal solely on limitation without considering bona fide reasons was unjustified. It restored the matter for adjudication on merits, emphasizing a liberal approach.
