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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted. The only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
ITAT held that CSR contributions can qualify for deduction under Section 80G if conditions are met. The ruling clarifies that there is no blanket prohibition on such claims under the law.
ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issue. The ruling emphasizes that mere disagreement with enquiry results does not justify revision.
The ITAT held that reopening was invalid as it was based on the same material already examined during the original assessment. It ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a concluded issue.
With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
The tribunal held that addition under Section 69C is not valid where expenditure is properly recorded and the source is explained. The key takeaway is that documented transactions through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Mumbai held that development fees collected from passengers was earmarked for capital expenditure towards modernisation and development of airport infrastructure and therefore the same could not be treated as revenue income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in compliance with DRP directions cannot be revised under Section 263. It clarified that such orders are not erroneous as the Assessing Officer is bound by DRP’s binding instructions.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. It emphasized the absence of independent evidence and upheld the taxpayers denial of cash payments.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals after the assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices. Lack of participation led to confirmation of additions made by tax authorities.
