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 deleted Section 40(a)(ia), notional interest, ICDS and Section 68 additions, citing Form 26A compliance and evident...
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 : 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 set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal, directing the AO to readjudicate the matter afresh. The assessee must fully cooperate and pay a cost for the earlier failure to produce documents.
The ITAT Pune set aside the CIT(A)’s order that had restricted a bogus purchase addition of ₹2.53 crore to a 12.5% profit element. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure the application of the binding ruling from the jurisdictional Bombay High Court regarding 100% disallowance in hawala purchase cases.
Relying on binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the revisionary order as legally invalid because the PCIT failed to bring the legal heir on record before passing the order. The ruling firmly establishes that an income tax order passed against a dead person is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the AO’s acceptance of ₹12.18 lakh exempt LTCG on Kushal Tradelink shares was based on a detailed inquiry and a plausible view. The Tribunal held that revision is invalid when the AO conducts due diligence, finds no adverse material to link the assessee to price rigging, and takes a possible view on the evidence.
Kolkata ITAT ruled in DCIT vs. Jupiter International that a ₹6.7 crore addition in an unabated tax year was illegal. Jurisdiction under Section 153A fails without seized, incriminating material, per SC precedent.
Adopting a principle of consistency, the ITAT Delhi restored the appeal for AY 2009-10 to the CIT(A), following its own earlier order for AYs 2010-11 to 2019-20 in the assessees case. The ruling ensures that the legal heir gets a proper chance to present evidence and submissions, thereby nullifying the additions made in the ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the addition of ₹2.28 crore LTCG, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any independent inquiry or verify the assessees documentary evidence before treating the gain as bogus. The Tribunal restored the case, emphasizing that an allegation of penny stock misuse cannot be sustained merely on third-party information without a proper, on-merits examination of the assessees documentation.
ITAT Rajkot directs CIT(E) to reconsider 80G approval for Meena Samaj Seva Trust, confirming trusts serving Scheduled Tribes are not barred under Section 80G(5).
