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...
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
The appellate order confirmed loan additions without addressing the Rule 46A plea. Holding this to be a serious procedural defect, the Tribunal set aside the order for de novo adjudication.
The dispute centered on profit estimation after reopening for suppressed turnover. The Tribunal affirmed lower NP for animal sales, recognising industry norms and assessee history. The ruling underscores tailoring estimates to trade economics.
While reopening of assessment was sustained due to bank deposit information, the cash addition was deleted on merits. Proper explanation of source defeats Section 69A.
The Tribunal reviewed an addition based on demonetisation-era cash deposits despite detailed hospital records being produced. It ruled that ignoring cash books and patient registers was unjustified.
It was ruled that money received from a parent through banking channels constitutes an explained source. The addition under Section 69A was deleted as the transaction was fully traceable.
The issue was whether a trader declaring income under Section 44AD could face additions for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, holding such additions contrary to law.
The Tribunal held that NFAC had no authority to pass reassessment orders before the faceless reassessment notification became operative. As a result, the entire assessment was quashed. The ruling highlights that participation by the assessee cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
It was ruled that interest for late filing of the original return can be computed based on tax determined in search-related assessment. Timely filing after notice does not negate earlier delay.
