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 ruled that once additional evidence is admitted, the appellate authority must adjudicate it on merits. Absence of a speaking order required the matter to be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Disallowance based only on supplier non-compliance was held unsustainable.
The case examined whether tax authorities could deny working capital adjustment despite clear prior directions of the Tribunal. The ITAT held that such directions are binding and must be implemented in letter and spirit. Once the adjustment was granted, the assessee’s margin fell within the permissible arm’s length rang
The Tribunal noted that share application money in the first year requires proper enquiry before invoking Section 68. Additions were deleted as statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the entire political donation could not be treated as bogus in the absence of incriminating evidence. To balance equities, only 10% of the alleged on-money was directed to be taxed on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that minor delays in depositing employees’ PF during the COVID-19 lockdown do not warrant disallowance. Considering extraordinary circumstances and statutory relaxations, the deduction was allowed despite the Checkmate ruling.
Interest was disallowed solely because the payee had not declared it. The Tribunal relied on Form 26AS showing payment and TDS to allow the claim. The ruling underscores documentary evidence over conjecture.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited during demonetisation was supported by evidence of cash sales and debtor collections. Once the source was substantiated, addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal observed serious procedural lapses, including reliance on an unsigned third-party ledger and denial of cross-examination. To balance equities, only an estimated profit portion was brought to tax.
Despite deficiencies in documentation, agricultural activity and landholding were undisputed. The Tribunal granted partial relief while sustaining a modest addition. The decision highlights a balanced approach where activity is proven but evidence is imperfect.
