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 : ITAT Special Bench held that omission of scrutiny category in a Section 143(2) notice is a procedural defect curable under Section...
Income Tax : ITAT held section 35D(2)(c) applies only to companies and upheld disallowance of REIT's claim for IPO and listing expense amortisa...
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 Bangalore restored the appeal after holding that mere upload of an order on the ITBA portal is not valid service under Sectio...
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 : ITAT Delhi deleted the section 69A addition of ₹33.50 lakh after holding the intercepted cash formed part of the disclosed prope...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted Section 270A penalty as notices lacked specific Section 270A(9) charge and the expenditure claim involved a deb...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored six Section 153A search assessment appeals to the AO, subject to ₹50,000 cost per appeal for repeated no...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted a Section 270A penalty as the notice and penalty order failed to specify the exact statutory limb of under-...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held disputed salary is taxable only if it became due and remanded the matter to verify the employment terms and em...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed rectification under Section 254(2), correcting factual errors and granting Section 54EC deduction of ₹1 crore ...
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...
No Addition of Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Period under section 69A If Cash Deposit Is Part of Receipts Shown on Presumptive Basis and When the Part of Cash Deposit in Pre Demonetisation-Period Was Accepted.
Eligibility of remuneration, share of profits received from partnership firm, whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of Income Tax
Estate of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai Vs DCIT CPC (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputed facts though the assessee has filed its return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,288,261/– in the status of association of person of estate of a diseased individual. The tax liability is required to be computed as per the normal tax as […]
Held that the interest income in question is required to be taxed at 10% in terms of the provisions of Article 11(2) of the India-Japan DTAA
Held that addition made on estimated basis, without rejecting books of accounts of the assessee, is unsustainable in law
Held that the explanation of the source of these very small loans as given by friends of the assessee to help him in his share trading transactions, and which has been confirmed by two parties, cannot be dismissed as unbelievable.
Held that merely because the assessee is referred as a contractor in the agreement, it doesn’t detract the assessee from the position of being a developer, nor will deprive the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act.
Held that identity of the donors as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act has been established by the assessee. Accordingly, the donations cannot be categorized as anonymous donations and cannot be subjected to tax.
Held that for invoking revisionary power u/s 263 it is necessary to point out the error in the order and that too such an error should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
CIT(A) merely followed certain case laws without discussing nature of expenses claimed by assessee – Order not sustainable
