Explore important Indian tax case laws, judicial decisions, and tribunal rulings explained in clear and practical language. This section covers Income Tax Case Law, ITAT decisions, GST case laws, and significant legal principles affecting taxpayers, businesses, charitable trusts, and tax professionals. Understand the facts of each case, the legal issue involved, the arguments of the parties, the court or tribunal’s reasoning, and the practical implications for tax compliance, assessments, exemptions, deductions, and litigation.
Built your new house on a plot in your wife’s name? ITAT Chennai says Section 54 can’t be denied outright. Rs 63 lakh construction cost allowed.
The CIT(A) sustained Rs.50.41 lakh because a recharge and money-transfer agent had no RBI licence. ITAT Delhi deleted it: Section 69A asks where the money came from, not whether the business was licensed.
Rs 85 lakh in cash gifts from family, all confirmed by the donors. AO still added it. ITAT Chennai says low donor income alone isn’t enough. Addition deleted.
Tax officer read yen as rupees and added Rs 3.41 crore to an NRI’s income. ITAT Jaipur says the bank had already confirmed the source. Addition gone.
Filed Form 10-IEA, then ticked the new regime in your ITR? ITAT Mumbai says the form wins. But you don’t lose your old-regime deductions.
Notice pasted on a locked room you never lived in? ITAT Mumbai says that’s no service at all. Reassessment quashed, Rs 1.46 crore additions gone.
Taxed on the full stamp duty gap for a flat you co-own? ITAT Mumbai says only your share counts, and a disputed value must go to the DVO first.
Loss disallowed just because your broker modified client codes? ITAT Mumbai says general Investigation Wing findings aren’t enough. Rs 1.06 crore addition deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai held that delayed filing of Form 10-IC does not automatically disqualify a company from claiming the concessional 22% tax rate under Section 115BAA. Read the ruling in ACIT v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. for key takeaways on late filing and tax relief.
ITAT Delhi quashes five years of Section 153C assessments: the satisfaction note said material “belongs to” the assessee but never recorded its bearing on total income.
