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 : Chennai ITAT deleted the Section 69A addition on cash deposits, holding the assessee acted as a commission agent, while sustaining...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT upheld deletion of a Section 69A addition, holding that cash withdrawals from the assessee's own bank account could n...
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 : 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...
ITAT Chennai held that the reassessment notice issued on 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s decisions. The reassessment proceedings were quashed without examining the merits of the additions.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Section 69C cannot be invoked where expenditure is duly recorded in the books and its source is fully explained. It deleted the addition relating to royalty, commission, and technical service payments.
ITAT Nagpur held that rejection of 12A and 80G applications solely because of an incorrect statutory provision was unsustainable. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to allow rectification and decide the applications on merits.
ITAT Delhi restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer after noting that the related quantum appeal had already been remanded for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the penalty should also be reconsidered in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that CPC could not process the return under Section 143(1) after the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that parallel proceedings under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) were not permissible.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish between under-reporting and misreporting of income. The penalty was deleted for lack of a specific finding.
Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and uncorroborated loose sheet lacking essential transaction details could not form the sole basis for an addition. It held that documentary evidence and purchasers’ statements rebutted the presumption arising from the seized document.
The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained solely on the basis of a seized loose sheet without independent evidence proving payment of on-money. It upheld the deletion after finding that the Revenue failed to corroborate the alleged unexplained investment.
The ITAT Jaipur held that a remittance received from a foreign employer under a retirement plan did not amount to concealment of foreign income or assets. It deleted the Rs.10 lakh penalty after accepting the assessee’s bona fide explanation.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act was not justified where foreign bank deposits arose from overseas employment income and related interest was regularly disclosed in India. The Tribunal treated the omission as a bona fide mistake based on the facts of the case.
