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 no TDS demand can survive where tax was duly deposited and PAN became operative within the CBDT-prescribed timeline. Deductors are entitled to relief under the beneficial 2024 CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated solely on the basis of an audit objection, without any independent application of mind, is invalid. Such reopening lacks the mandatory reason to believe and cannot sustain in law.
Sales already offered to tax cannot be added again under section 68. With stock movement evidenced and books not rejected, treating recorded turnover as unexplained cash credit was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that estimating profit at 20% of turnover in a milk trading business was arbitrary and unsupported by industry realities. It restricted the gross profit rate to 5%, recognising wastage, spoilage, and thin margins typical to the trade.
The Tribunal held that revision under section 263 was invalid where the MAT adjustment arose mechanically from a transition amount already examined in an earlier year, and no fresh error was shown.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation was taxable as per settled law, the exemption claim for land compensation required verification. The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
Failing to report transporter details in your quarterly TDS return was a procedural error, not a tax deduction failure. Since assessee was not liable to deduct tax (thanks to the declarations), Section 40(a)(ia)—which applied only when tax is deductible but not deducted—could not be invoked.
The Tribunal ruled that withdrawing a deduction in response to a Section 148 notice does not erase underreporting. Penalty for misrepresentation under Section 270A was upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that when purchases are disallowed as non-genuine without questioning the source of payment, section 69C cannot be invoked. A plausible disallowance under section 37(1) cannot be revised under section 263 merely to change the charging provision.
