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 : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest and dividend income from co-operative bank deposits, setting as...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest from deposits with co-operative and scheduled banks, following ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from deposits with co-operative and sched...
Income Tax : Hyderabad ITAT upheld capital gains on a registered sale deed but remanded LTCG computation for fresh verification of the cost of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on dividend from co-operative banks, following coordinate bench decisions for ...
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...
Tribunal held that purchase of land outside the prescribed period does not automatically disqualify exemption on construction of a residential house. Construction expenditure incurred within the time limit prescribed under Section 54 may still qualify for deduction. The issue was remanded for verification of actual construction costs.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be based on the same material already examined during a completed Section 153C assessment. The ruling emphasizes that fresh tangible material is necessary for valid reopening.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note failed to identify the documents allegedly found during the search or their connection to the taxpayer. The ruling confirms that vague references to seized material are insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that the Delhi Assessing Officer could not legally assess the taxpayer when jurisdiction continued to remain with Mumbai authorities. The decision underscores that jurisdiction cannot shift without following statutory procedures.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish escaped income of ₹50 lakh or more, a prerequisite for extending the assessment period beyond six years. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory thresholds for extended reassessment.
ITAT Delhi held that protective additions cannot survive when the same income has already been assessed substantively in the hands of the real beneficiaries. The key takeaway is that the Revenue cannot tax identical income twice in different hands.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored the statutory threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. The ruling emphasizes that reassessment notices issued contrary to limitation provisions are void in law.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer incorrectly treated consignment transactions as the assessees turnover based solely on cess payments. The ruling emphasizes that commission agents should be taxed on commission income and not on consignors turnover.
