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 Delhi quashed the assessment after holding that the Section 143(2) notice was issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdic...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashed Section 148 reassessment as separate transactions could not be aggregated to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold unde...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune deleted capital gains holding no transfer occurred under Sections 2(47)(v) or 2(47)(vi) as no possession or consideratio...
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 : 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...
Assessee succeeded in cross-objection as reassessment lacked jurisdiction and Section 69C addition was inapplicable, confirming deletion of addition and quashing proceedings.
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
Tribunal held that addition for alleged accommodation entry could not stand where AO made no independent verification. Genuine sales, banking-channel receipts and tax records supported deletion.
ITAT Bangalore set aside reassessment orders for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, ruling that failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act invalidates the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO’s enquiries and acceptance of a plausible view were upheld.
ITAT quashed reassessment notice issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO. Addition of ₹29.69 crore was invalidated, and Revenue’s appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that an order rejecting condonation under Section 119(2)(b) cannot be appealed under Section 253(1). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, reaffirming limits on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that purchase from a State Government entity cannot be undervalued, deleting Rs. 6.59 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of alleged on-money additions, holding that similar additions had already been overturned in HBPL’s case. The ruling confirms that the AO’s reliance on earlier search findings could not justify the addition.
ITAT Delhi remands an ex-parte CIT(A)/NFAC order for fresh adjudication, citing potential communication gaps in the faceless hearing regime.
