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 Tribunal ruled that reopening based solely on an Insight Portal flag without independent verification is invalid. It held that absence of tangible material and incorrect factual assumptions renders the entire 147 proceeding void.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued beyond three years require approval from PCCIT/PDGIT, not PCIT. The invalid sanction vitiated all proceedings, following Rajeev Bansal.
ITAT held that reassessment based solely on earlier-examined facts is invalid. Since shares were sold through a SEBI broker and gains were already taxed, no Section 68 addition could survive.
ITAT held that the AO cannot rely only on loss-making trades while ignoring profitable ones, upholding deletion of additions made under Project Falcon.
The Tribunal upheld that textile sales were not genuine, sustaining commission estimation at 3% of turnover. Additions under section 68 were remitted to the Assessing Officer due to lack of documentary evidence.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed all expense disallowances and additions for unexplained share capital, premium, and warrants. The assessee failed to prove genuineness or creditworthiness, and identity alone was insufficient under section 68.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under section 68 cannot stand in an unabated year without incriminating material from a search. External reports or third-party statements were insufficient, and the full addition was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai restored exemption under section 11(1)(a) despite a clerical mistake in Form 10B. The original form was timely filed, and the revised form only corrected the error, ensuring the trust’s substantive rights were protected.
Since the 14A disallowance was already struck down on the ground that no exempt income was earned, the Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A had no legal basis. It ruled that penalty cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition ceases to exist. The key takeaway is that penalty collapses automatically when its foundation is eliminated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for a long delay, noting negligence and absence of due care. late appeals require concrete justification, not assumptions or later legal advice.
