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...
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 148 notice issued after six years from AY 2013–14 was invalid, quashing the reassessment and additions under Section 54F.
Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation for delay and held that denial of opportunity justified remand for fresh assessment under Section 147/144B.
Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE deposit sources under Section 69.
Tribunal held that a minor delay should not defeat justice and directed CIT(A) to hear the case on merits, citing violation of Section 250(6).
Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54 depends on amount actually invested in a new property and not on ownership proportion. Assessing Officer’s restriction to 50% due to joint ownership was set aside, confirming relief for assessee.
The Tribunal accepted medical reasons for delay, found notice service defective, and set aside a non-speaking CIT(A) order for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
Tribunal ruled that disallowance for not filing Form 10 can only apply in the year of default, not later years of utilization. Addition of ₹80 lakh deleted.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
