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 Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is invalid when reasons lack details like transaction nature, parties, and dates. It emphasized that vague information and absence of independent application of mind cannot justify reassessment. The ruling reinforces strict standards for valid reopening under tax law.
The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it. It held that violation of Rule 46A renders the order procedurally defective.
The case involved disallowance of deduction under Section 80P due to delayed return filing. The Tribunal ruled that the issue must be reconsidered after the authority decides the condonation request.
ITAT observed that the assessee provided invoices, bank records, and tax documents supporting purchases. Since sales were undisputed, full disallowance was unwarranted. The ruling highlights balanced approach in such cases.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets aside dismissal and directs AO to treat demonetisation cash deposits as business turnover (if normal) and estimate income u/s 44AD instead of Section 69A addition.
The Tribunal quashed penalty where the AO did not specify the exact limb of misreporting under Section 270A(9). It held that vague notices invalidate penalty proceedings. Key takeaway: specificity is mandatory for penalty levy.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 68 cannot apply to opening balances; remands ₹55.53 lakh addition for verification, directing AO to examine prior-year records and delete addition if no fresh credit arose during the year.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) confirmed additions without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that failure to consider explanations violates natural justice. Key takeaway: fair hearing is essential even in faceless assessments.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69A since the evidence pertained to a partnership firm. It held that without proof of personal receipt, income cannot be taxed in the partner’s hands.
