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 a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition is deleted by a binding ITAT order. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no stay or direction from the High Court could revive the deleted quantum.
ITAT rules that reliance on remand report from a different year is invalid, restoring matter to Assessing Officer for AY 2012-13.
ITAT Hyderabad held that notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, stressing only FAOs can issue such notices under the faceless assessment scheme.
Detailed seized agreement and subsequent sale deed considered strong corroboration. Addition under Section 69A sustained in search-based reassessment.
Tribunal holds that working capital impact must be examined by the TPO when comparables are selected by the Department. If adjustment is granted, no separate interest addition is warranted.
The Tribunal ruled that interest could not be disallowed when ample interest-free funds existed and no link was shown between overdraft borrowings and partners’ drawings. The key takeaway is that presumption of utilisation of own funds applies when mixed funds are available.
The Tribunal held that reassessment could not stand because the recorded reasons pertained to a different assessment year. The reopening was invalid, and all related additions were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalty cannot continue after the underlying addition ceases to exist. The ruling highlights strict adherence to the principle of dependency between quantum and penalty.
ITAT held that AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were time-barred since the 10-year window must be computed from the date of recorded satisfaction. The ruling reaffirms that out-of-range years cannot be assessed under 153C.
ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was fully backed by prior withdrawals exceeding ₹47 lakh. The ruling confirms that demonstrated cash availability defeats Section 68 additions.
