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 : Bangalore ITAT remanded FD interest addition, directing verification of fund ownership and held Form 26AS alone is not determinati...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added where sales are accepted, restricting the addition to 1.15% pro...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held TP adjustments apply only to international AE transactions and upheld verified capacity, working capital and o...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi reduced the Section 69A addition to ₹5 lakh, holding the cash deposits were substantially supported by withdrawals an...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi condoned delay under Section 249(3) and remanded the appeals after finding breach of natural justice in dismissal witho...
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 the cross-charged fee for use of third-party software does not qualify as Royalty as the payment is for a copyrighted article and not the transfer of copyright rights. This decision deletes a significant addition, reaffirming that the make available clause in the DTAA was not satisfied.
The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)’s pragmatic decision to restrict an addition of ₹8.21 crore for unexplained cash deposits to a 5% profit margin on the total deposits. This estimation was deemed reasonable, considering the nature of the assessee’s pottery trading business where full documentation was absent, balancing commercial reality with revenue protection.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed a revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the Assessing Officer’s detailed scrutiny into the Rs.124 crore business loss was adequate.2 The Tribunal confirmed that when an AO conducts proper inquiries, the order is not “erroneous” and cannot be subject to revision merely because the PCIT disagrees.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of Rs.85.05 lakh, ruling that Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of M/s Pine Animation Ltd. shares was genuine. The Tribunal held that demat-backed transactions through banking channels cannot be rejected merely based on a general Investigation Wing report.
The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was unsustainable because it failed to cite any specific instance where the AO neglected to verify the alleged fictitious loan transaction. For Section 263 to apply, both the error in the assessment and prejudice to the revenue must be proven, which the PCIT did not demonstrate.
The ITAT Dehradun quashed an entire reassessment, holding the mandatory notice under Section 148 invalid because it was sent to an old postal address and a wrong email ID. The ruling confirms that non-service of the foundational notice renders all subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad invalidated the entire Section 143(1) intimation because the CPC made an adjustment regarding the leave encashment exemption without issuing the mandatory prior notice. The Tribunal held that the failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) is a violation of audi alteram partem and renders the proceedings invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in deleting ₹10.64 crore addition for bogus purchases without obtaining Assessing Officer’s comments on additional evidence. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in compliance with Rule 46A.
