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...
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notice under Section 148 failed to disclose mandatory approval under Section 151. The Tribunal found the reopening to be mechanical and without independent application of mind, rendering the reassessment void ab initio.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹11.14 lakh cash addition made during a search, ruling that cash found in a common locker belonged to the entire joint family, not just the assessee. The Tribunal held that detailed, contemporaneous records and I-T returns filed by family members, plus an explanation for small accumulated gifts, sufficiently explained the source of the funds, overturning the CIT(A)’s arbitrary and factually incorrect rejection of the evidence.
Delhi ITAT directed the AO to recompute disallowance under Section 14A as per the amended Rule 8D (2016), limiting it to 1 % of investments yielding exempt income. Other Revenue grounds, including 80-IA and leave-encashment, were dismissed.
ITAT Delhi ruled that WhatsApp chats recovered during a search, if corroborated by context and left unrebutted by the assessee, create a statutory presumption of correctness under Section 292C, leading to a sustained addition of ₹9 lakh as unexplained money. The Tribunal also directed the allowance of an 80TTA deduction claim for the abated assessment year (AY 2018-19).
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in filing appeals caused by major heart surgery and prolonged illness constituted a sufficient cause. It restored the dismissed appeals and directed the CIT(A) not to adopt a hypertechnical approach while deciding condonation requests.
The ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment orders for three assessment years (AY 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17) based on fundamental legal flaws. The ruling confirms that reassessments are invalid if initiated on wrong or substituted reasons, if they are time-barred (following the Supreme Court’s concession in the Rajeev Bansal case), or if they proceed without valid statutory sanction from the competent authority.
The Tribunal annulled a reassessment after finding the AO wrongly assumed no return was filed. It held that a notice under Section 148 issued without applying mind is invalid, reinforcing that “reason to believe” must rest on verified facts.
Delhi ITAT declared an entire income tax assessment void ab initio because Assessing Officer, who assumed jurisdiction post-transfer, failed to issue mandatory notice under Section 143(2). This ruling confirms that a fresh jurisdictional notice is compulsory for the new AO to validate the assessment proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a Rs.1.83 crore addition for alleged bogus loans, ruling that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted search statements cannot override documentary evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the loans were genuine, noting the assessee provided full proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness via audited accounts, bank statements, and TDS on interest paid to the NBFC lenders.
ITAT clarified that absence of ownership transfer at the end of the lease period makes it an operating lease, rejecting Assessing Officer’s treatment of transaction as a financial lease.
