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 Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on dividend from co-operative banks, following coordinate bench decisions for ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune remanded the Section 80P deduction issue for fresh assessment after noting relevant precedents and directing reconsidera...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest from co-operative bank deposits, following binding judicial pre...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT held Section 50C provisos applicable to oral agreements backed by bank payments and deleted related additions, remand...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT deleted the Section 271D penalty, holding temporary cash received to demonstrate visa funds was not a loan attracting...
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 Delhi held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminating material could not validly confer jurisdiction under Section 153C. It quashed the assessments after following the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shaksham Commodities Ltd.
Bangalore ITAT held that BSNL employees who received retrenchment compensation under the 2019 VRS were entitled to exemption under Section 10(10B) and full leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA). The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and granted relief on merits.
The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an earlier year. While the reassessment was upheld, the additions towards alleged accommodation entries and commission were deleted.
Bangalore ITAT held that cash redeposited during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A when the assessee established that it originated from earlier bank withdrawals.
Bangalore ITAT held that customer deposits representing sale proceeds could not be taxed in full as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate business income at 8% of the receipts, holding that only the profit element was taxable.
Bangalore ITAT deleted the addition under Section 69A after holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits with supporting documents and the Assessing Officer failed to disprove the explanation.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. It ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The ITAT ruled that failure to produce confirmations from debtors did not justify additions where sales, ledger accounts, and sample invoices were already on record. It directed deletion of the additions after finding no contrary evidence from the Revenue.
The ITAT ruled that bonus payments recorded in a separate bonus ledger, audit report, and profit and loss account could not be disallowed merely because they were absent from the salary ledger.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits recorded in audited books of account could not be treated as unexplained merely because they included specified bank notes. Since the Revenue found no defects in the books or evidence of bogus receipts, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
