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 amounts reflected in regular books and disclosed in returns before search cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure. Section 69C was found inapplicable as no out-of-books spending was established.
The Tribunal clarified that even where the assessee owns more than ten trucks, Section 44AE can be used as a fair yardstick for income estimation. Arbitrary assessment and multiple additions were set aside.
The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairness. The case was sent back for proper scrutiny of actual net winnings.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect computation of opening and closing stock during survey cannot justify full addition. Only the reconciled excess stock amount already offered to tax was sustained.
Where more than three years had elapsed, approval from the higher specified authority was compulsory before issuing notice. Failure to obtain such approval vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that registration under section 12AB cannot be refused based on apprehended future application of funds or possible violations. The Tribunal held that the authority must restrict examination to objects and genuineness of activities, restoring the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that additions under unexplained money provisions cannot be sustained where the assessee provides credible documentary evidence. Suspicion without inquiry cannot replace factual verification.
Tribunal sent back the matter to the AO to verify eligibility of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction based on Supreme Court guidelines regarding RBI licence status of the co-operative bank.
Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to provide underlying material before passing order under Section 148A(d) invalidates reopening. The assessment order was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data without independent corroboration or cross-examination.
