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...
Holding that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, the Tribunal restored the appeal. The case was remanded for reconsideration after granting opportunity.
The Tribunal held that enhancing profit to 10% without comparables was arbitrary. Past accepted margins around 6% had to guide estimation. Income was directed to be computed at 6%.
The Tribunal clarified that precedents cannot replace factual analysis under TNMM. High-turnover mismatches justified exclusion, but other comparables required verification. The ruling underscores disciplined TP benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that once delay in filing the return is condoned under Section 119(2)(b), denial of Section 80P solely for late filing is unsustainable. The deduction was directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that a landowner under a JDA cannot be forced to adopt the percentage completion method merely because the developer follows it. Consistent use of the project completion method was upheld as legally valid.
Both 12AB and 80G applications were rejected without adequate reasoning or opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized mandatory compliance with due process. The cases were sent back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether late-fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing TDS returns before 01-06-2015. The Tribunal held that without Section 200A(1)(c), such levy was without authority of law.
Chennai ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263, confirming that when the AO adopts a plausible view and conducts proper scrutiny, revision is unwarranted.
The ITAT held that limitation under section 144C(13) starts from the date DRP directions are uploaded on the ITBA portal. A final order passed beyond this deadline was declared void ab initio.
