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 held that deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed since donation was given to Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust whose approval expired on 31.03.2006. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that sum has been received for work relating to interior and other finishing work and total consideration is received through banking channel. Hence, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Hence, penalty u/s. 271D not leviable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condition of investment to the corpus donation in mode prescribed under section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01/04/2022. Hence the said condition is not applicable in the relevant year. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a business’s cash deposits during the demonetisation period were not unexplained under 68, provided they were sourced from genuine sales. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, holding that the lower authorities stock calculation was flawed and statutory records (VAT, Audited Books) corroborated the sales genuineness.
The ITAT Delhi remanded the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions under 36(1)(va), holding that the due date for deposit is calculated from the actual date of salary disbursement, not the calendar month of accrual. The AO was directed to verify if the deposit was made within 15 days of the month of actual payment to allow the deduction.c
The issue was whether high cash sales recorded before demonetisation, and subsequently deposited, could be taxed as unexplained income. The ITAT ruled that since the sales were already recorded, audited, and offered for tax, the deposits could not be taxed again under Section 68 or 69. The key takeaway is that when books of accounts are accepted and corroborated by stock and VAT returns, genuine sales receipts cannot be subjected to double taxation based on mere suspicion or averages.
This ITAT ruling draws a clear line: it upheld the legal and evidence-based addition of ₹6.12 lakh for deemed rental income on multiple house properties, but simultaneously deleted the entire ₹5,87,500 addition for unexplained cash credit, condemning the use of arbitrary 50% estimations by tax authorities.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹10 lakh penalty, ruling that an estimated addition based on the non-genuineness of purchases does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court principle that making an unsustainable claim does not automatically attract a penalty.
