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 found that the investors had substantial net worth far exceeding their investments. With PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and audited financials on record, the share capital could not be treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment as unexplained is unjustified. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CPC wrongly applied the outdated ₹3 lakh ceiling despite Notification No. 31/2023 enhancing the limit to ₹25 lakh. Since the retirement benefit was within the revised cap, full exemption under Section 10(10AA) was directed.
The ITAT held that fresh allotment of shares at a value below fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(viia). The term receives includes allotment, and the differential amount was rightly taxed as income from other sources.
The ITAT held that absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect. Since the notice was not properly issued by the competent officer, the entire assessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that proving source of source was not mandatory for AY 2014-15. Since identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established, unsecured loan additions were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on non-compete fees despite Supreme Court ruling it as revenue expenditure, citing practical difficulty and revenue-neutral impact. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once provisions were disallowed and taxed in an earlier year, their subsequent reversal cannot be taxed again. It directed withdrawal of income offered to prevent double taxation.
Penalty was imposed alleging misreporting due to belated PF/ESI remittance. The Tribunal ruled that a disclosed claim later disallowed does not fall under any clause of Section 270A(9), and deleted the penalty.
The Revenue denied deduction by treating bank interest as Income from Other Sources. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the interest income forms part of business profits eligible for Section 80P.
