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 Ahmedabad ruled that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided only after the quantum appeal is finalized.
The ITAT Delhi partly deleted an addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that since the books of account were not rejected and the profit element from corresponding sales was already offered to tax, taxing 12.5% of the bogus purchase value constituted double taxation. The Tribunal finally restricted the addition to an agreed-upon amount of Rs.4,00,000.
Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of 71.12 lakh, holding that the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits by correlating them with prior cash withdrawals recorded in the books. The ruling emphasizes that S. 69A (unexplained money) cannot be invoked when the source of deposits is traced to funds from bank accounts already part of the regular books.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.23 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had fully discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors. Since complete evidence (confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements) was filed and no adverse material was found, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal quashed an unexplained investment addition based purely on a digital ledger retrieved from a mobile phone, as it was not corroborated by any evidence of actual cash payment or movement. Following its own prior ruling, the ITAT confirmed that digital evidence like WhatsApp messages must comply with Section 65B to be est in law.
The ITAT partially allowed the assessee’s appeal, deleting Rs.26.16 lakh of the unexplained cash deposit added under Section 68 for the demonetisation period. The ruling emphasizes that tax authorities should make a fair estimation when the assessee’s explanation has partial merit, even if the documentary proof is insufficient to justify the whole claim.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that while purchases from a blacklisted entity were not fully proven, the entire amount couldn’t be added to income as corresponding sales were accepted. Following Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a 5% profit markup over the declared Gross Profit rate of 12.63%, thereby deleting the majority of the original Rs. 92,20,100 addition.
The Base Metal Chemicals vs ACIT case examines the validity of large tax additions made by the AO on conversion charges, partner payments, under-invoiced sales, and stock valuation. The key issue was whether the additions were based on commercial reality or mere presumption.
The ITAT confirmed that a commission paid to non-resident agents operating solely abroad, without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is not taxable in the country. This finding resulted in the cancellation of the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal ruled that an HUF, the beneficial owner of the income, cant be denied TDS credit just because the tax was initially shown in the Kartas PAN. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify subsequent compliance with Rule 37BA(2) and the updated Form 26AS to prevent the Revenues unjust enrichment.
