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...
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee proved repayment of ₹1 crore via banking channels, Revenue must first disprove the evidence before invoking sections 68 or 69C. Both the addition and related interest disallowance of ₹3.78 lakh were deleted.
The Tribunal held that a short-term loan received from a sister concern cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The loan was for business purposes, not for shareholder benefit. Key takeaway: transactions between sister concerns do not automatically attract dividend treatment even if there is common shareholding.
Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive once the Section 14A addition is deleted, especially where no exempt income was earned. The ruling reiterates that prospective amendments cannot justify retrospective disallowances.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly due to the assessee’s 60% handicap, emphasizing that delay in filing was not deliberate. The case was remanded for merit-based adjudication, ensuring fairness. Key takeaway: disabilities and procedural lapses can justify condoning appeal delays.
The Tribunal remanded the appeal after the CIT(A) did not consider additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The assessee can now submit confirmations to substantiate claims. Key takeaway: procedural lapses should not prevent merit-based adjudication.
The assessee’s exemption under section 11 was initially denied as Form 10B was filed after the return. The court held that timely availability before assessment suffices. Key takeaway: Section 11 benefits apply if Form 10B is accessible during assessment.
An addition of ₹14,54,029/- was challenged on sundry creditor differences. The tribunal found total liabilities in the audited balance sheet matched the ITR. Key takeaway: Proper accounting of provisions ensures no unwarranted addition.
The Tribunal held that DCF valuation cannot be discarded merely because projections differ from actual results. AO’s failure to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer rendered the Section 56(2)(viib) addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned speaking order and dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proving deliberate non-compliance. The matter was remanded with one final opportunity, reinforcing natural justice requirements.
