Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Andaman Timber Industries, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the right to cross-examination is mandatory for any addition based on a third-party statement. Failure to grant this right nullifies the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed merely on a survey statement when the builder consistently follows the Project Completion Method. Additions of ₹19.2 crore were deleted.
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹5.73 crore addition u/s 68, holding HUF proved loan identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, and repayment with interest.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained expenditure merely on the basis of suspicion based on information received from another authority without independent enquiry cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the interconnect usage charges and roaming charges paid to Foreign Telecom Operators [FTOs] are not in the nature of royalty and hence not taxable in India. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS not justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favour of Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, holding that an FPI claiming capital gains exemption under the India-Singapore DTAA (Article 13) cannot be forced to set off prior year’s brought-forward losses against that exempt income.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT without considering submissions filed by the assessee amounts to non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter is remitted back to PCIT to consider the submissions and pass a speaking order.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that the power to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 is invalid when a valid return is on record and the Assessing Officer still has time to initiate regular scrutiny under Section 143(2).
The ITAT set aside the entire reassessment, holding that a valid notice is a mandatory jurisdictional step, citing the Supreme Court’s Hotel Blue Moon ruling. Since the two notices issued were defective (one premature, the other beyond the statutory time limit), the assessment was deemed illegal.
The issue was a ad-hoc addition on cash deposits sustained by the due to the absence of direct source-to-deposit correlation. The ITAT deleted the addition, holding that once the overall source (like agricultural or business income) is accepted on merits, does not require mathematical one-to-one matching.
