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 ITAT Kolkata deleted the Rs.10.25 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement that was subsequently retracted, citing coercion. The court found the loans were genuine, routed through banking channels, supported by evidence, and later repaid with TDS deducted interest.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of Rs.1.74 crore, ruling that corpus donations received by a registered charitable trust with specific written directions (for a “building fund”) are exempt under Section 11(1)(d). The ruling confirms that the exemption applies regardless of whether charitable activities were carried out in the same year.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, ruling the Section 148 notice issued on 31.07.2022 was time-barred. This decision strictly follows the Rajeev Bansal (SC) judgment, which held that the TOLA extension for reopening notices did not apply to AY 2015-16 beyond 31.03.2021.
The ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a primary cooperative credit society, holding that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mavilayi confirms that these societies are not excluded by Section 80P(4). The Tribunal confirmed the society’s income was derived solely from transactions with its members.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Section 68 addition of Rs.1.67 crore, holding that loans proven to be repaid through banking channels with TDS deducted on interest cannot be treated as bogus accommodation entries.1 The ruling emphasizes that additions based solely on a retracted survey statement lack evidentiary value, especially without corroborating material.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
The ITAT Kolkata condoned a massive 2581-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the taxpayer’s claim of being unaware of the CIT(A)’s order as a reasonable cause. The case was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000 cost.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside an ex parte assessment and appellate order, restoring the case to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee’s continuous non-compliance.1 The Tribunal granted this final opportunity on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.50,000 to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the Section 68 addition of Rs.28.14 lakh made on cash deposits during demonetization, ruling that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the detailed documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The case was remanded for a fresh, de novo consideration after verifying all sales documents and cash flow.
The ITAT Delhi confirmed the addition of Rs.25.35 lakh as unexplained investment for a house purchase under Section 69, ruling that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of loans allegedly received from his mother and sister. The lenders lacked sufficient bank balances, and documentation was incomplete.
