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...
Holding that justice requires a reasoned order after hearing both sides, the Tribunal remanded the appeals. Continued non-cooperation may still permit ex parte disposal.
The appeals involved common challenges to reassessment proceedings across several years. As CIT(A) had not ruled on these issues, the Tribunal ordered a remand for fresh decision.
The addition was based on suspicion arising from third-party misconduct. The Tribunal reiterated that income tax additions cannot rest on presumptions alone.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
The Tribunal held that running coaching classes for substantial fees does not qualify as charitable education. In the absence of evidence of free or subsidized services, exemption under section 11 was rightly denied.
The assessment relied on investigation reports without examining the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal held that cross-verification is essential before sustaining additions under section 68.
The assessee claimed that cash deposits belonged to company debtors and past savings, which were not examined earlier. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-verification in the interest of justice.
The addition was sustained on the ground that earlier cash deposits were not explained. The Tribunal held that the explanation of medical exigency and redeposit was reasonable and directed deletion.
The lower authorities confirmed an addition without considering permissible valuation variation. The Tribunal held that ignoring the 10% tolerance under section 50C renders the addition invalid.
The case concerned denial of deduction citing dealings with associate members. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court precedent and directed the AO to verify member status and society bye-laws before deciding eligibility.
