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 upheld deletion of ₹1.14 crore Section 69C addition as it was based only on third-party statements without corroborati...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held delayed filing of Form 67 is not a ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 where foreign income and ta...
Income Tax : Gains arising from sale of strategic investments, promoter holdings, unlisted shares and similar long-term capital assets held by ...
Income Tax : Transfer of electricity from eligible captive power units to non-eligible units was to be valued at the tariff charged by State El...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad upheld the excess cash addition and Section 153D approval, while remanding the stock shortage addition for fresh ex...
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 Assessing Officer examined the audited books, balance sheet, and supporting records but did not identify any discrepancy or reject the accounts. ITAT held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 115BBE was unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the taxpayer had furnished complete documentary evidence of purchase and sale of shares. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment based solely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry is invalid. The ruling emphasizes that borrowed satisfaction cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal ruled that statements of builder group officials, without corroborative evidence against the purchaser, cannot form the sole basis for addition. The decision reinforces the principle that third-party statements must be independently verified.
The Tribunal accepted that the taxpayer was pursuing rectification remedies and therefore condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The key takeaway is that genuine efforts to resolve disputes through alternative legal remedies can justify delay condonation.
The Revenue sought to levy penalty despite accepting the revised income declared by the assessee. ITAT held that accepted disclosures do not automatically amount to misreporting and cannot justify penalty under Section 270A.
The ITAT held that reassessment cannot be sustained when additions are ultimately made on issues not mentioned in the recorded reasons for reopening. The AO’s jurisdiction failed because no valid addition survived on the original escapement issue.
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.
