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 Chennai directed the AO to apply the peak credit theory and restrict the Section 69A addition instead of taxing the entire ca...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai restored the Section 115BAA claim, directing verification and holding delayed or non-electronic Form 10-IC filing sho...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the Section 69C addition on bank withdrawals and quashed the agricultural income addition after the reopeni...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad quashed Section 263 revision, holding deduction for contribution to an approved LIC gratuity fund was not restricte...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune restored Section 147 reassessment, holding Section 153C was inapplicable as seized material did not directly pertain or ...
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 proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note did not record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income. The assessment was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay was supported by sufficient cause, including the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation orders and an error by the assessee’s counsel. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by applying the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation directions. It also allowed the Foreign Tax Credit claim by following earlier judicial precedents.
The case concerned denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely due to delayed filing of Form No. 67. The Tribunal followed earlier precedents and directed that the credit be granted after verification.
The Tribunal held that additions relating to share capital and share premium required fresh examination after considering the assessee’s documentary evidence and offer to produce investor-company directors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Tribunal ruled that BSNL VRS-2019 compensation qualifies for complete exemption under Section 10(10B) despite the assessee not claiming it in the original return. It directed the Revenue to recompute income and issue the eligible refund.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by treating capital gains as business income without obtaining mandatory approval for complete scrutiny. The appeal was partly allowed on this technical ground, and the merits were not examined.
The ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction cannot confer valid authority to complete an assessment. It quashed the assessment after finding that the jurisdictional officer also failed to issue a fresh statutory notice.
The ITAT held that a scrutiny assessment cannot survive where the jurisdictional Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that the defect rendered the entire assessment void ab initio despite transfer of the case.
