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 deduction under Section 80P on bank interest cannot be re-examined once earlier order attained finality. The issue was restricted to allowing related expenses under Section 57.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
The issue involved addition made without providing a hearing. The Tribunal held that once such action is invalid, further directions cannot be issued. The takeaway is that procedural violation nullifies subsequent directions.
The case examined whether a 2345-day delay could be condoned based on reasons like miscommunication and financial hardship. The Tribunal held that vague explanations and negligence do not qualify as sufficient cause, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal held that deduction is allowable as there is no specific prohibition except for certain funds.
The Tribunal held that delayed verification of an e-filed return is only a procedural lapse. Deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied when the return was filed within the due date.
ITAT examined demonetisation cash deposits and accepted sales and withdrawals as valid sources. However, addition was partly sustained due to unsubstantiated claims like cash gifts.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest provision only increases business income, which remains eligible for Section 80P deduction. Hence, the addition was treated as tax-neutral and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The article highlights that failure to serve proper notice under Rule 8 can invalidate proceedings. Adequate notice is a mandatory condition for fair hearing.
