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 held that additions based on presumptions without evidence cannot be sustained fully. It reduced the addition on unexplained cash deposits from 10% to 5%, granting relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied merely because the purchase agreement was unregistered. Substantial payment and possession were considered sufficient for claiming relief.
The Tribunal held that where registration is delayed, the stamp duty value on the agreement date must be considered. The ruling applies the beneficial proviso to Section 50C retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that different floors of the same building constitute one residential house. Deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied on the ground of structural division.
The tribunal held that gains from sale of shares did not fall under Article 14(4). It ruled that Article 14(6) applies, making gains taxable only in the country of residence. The decision clarifies DTAA interpretation.
The issue was penalty for misreporting on sale of land classified as capital asset. The Tribunal held the issue was debatable and deleted the penalty.
The dispute involved incorrect invocation of valuation provisions by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that using Section 142A instead of 55A vitiated the assessment.
The issue was rejection of trust registration treating activities as commercial. The Tribunal held activities were charitable and directed grant of registration under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal held that compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme qualifies as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B). It ruled that the entire amount is a capital receipt and fully exempt from tax.
The dispute involved unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that deposits partly belonged to the principal, reducing the addition.
