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 Bangalore deleted estimated gross profit addition, holding that accepted books of account could not justify estimation withou...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad quashed reassessment as Section 148 notice lacked approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) for A...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi restored a Section 44ADA addition to the AO for fresh examination after directing consideration of correct GSTR figures...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune reduced the gross profit addition by applying a 2% GP rate after considering past scrutiny records and comparable sister...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Section 56(2)(x) addition after finding the AO did not establish that repayment of the corporate l...
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 ITAT held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The ITAT held that reassessment based only on Investigation Wing inputs, without independent application of mind, is invalid. Since reopening itself failed, the Section 68 share capital addition could not survive.
The ITAT ruled that an inadvertent mistake in selecting the assessment year while filing Form 10AB cannot defeat an existing valid registration. Mechanical rejection without record verification was held unsustainable.
The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional AO invalidates the entire assessment. Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured later, making the assessment void from inception.
The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash deposits.
The tribunal ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand when the quantum addition forming its basis is deleted. The key takeaway is that penalty proceedings automatically fail without a surviving assessment addition.
The issue was whether cash salary and commission payments attracted disallowance under section 40A(3). The ITAT held that since each payment was below the per-day statutory limit, the disallowance of ₹2.75 crore was unsustainable.
The issue was whether property investment could be treated as unexplained in reassessment proceedings. The ITAT held that where bank trails, NRE accounts, and loan documents fully explain the source, additions cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and not fatal to exemption under section 11. Substantive charitable benefits cannot be denied for trivial delays.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a shell concern with no real services is taxable as unexplained credit. Claims that expenditure related to an earlier year were rejected.
