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 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 : ITAT Pune remanded the Section 80P deduction issue for fresh assessment after noting relevant precedents and directing reconsidera...
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 ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Amritsar ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the officer completing the assessment had not issued the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO under the unamended Section 55A. Since the reference itself was invalid, the addition based on the DVOs valuation could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 55A effective from 01.07.2012 was prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14. As a result, the DVO reference made for AY 2012-13 was held invalid and the addition was deleted.
ITAT Surat held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO where the assessee had adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer’s report. The LTCG addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the valuation issue to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13. Since the statutory conditions were not met, the long-term capital gains addition was deleted.
ITAT Surat held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO where the assessee had adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer’s report. The LTCG addition based on the DVO report was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a land sale completed before 01.07.2012 could not be subjected to a DVO reference under the amended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference was invalid, the long-term capital gains addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the property valuation to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13 under the unamended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference lacked legal authority, the addition to long-term capital gains could not be sustained.
