Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Se...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 15...
The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra payment. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of on-money beyond the registered sale deed value.
ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 153C and not Sections 147/148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a mandatory satisfaction note.
The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceedings for unauthorized construction. The Tribunal accepted the actual purchase price as fair market value and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal ruled that a flat 15% profit estimation was excessive where all contract receipts were received through banking channels with TDS deductions. It directed recomputation of income at 7% of turnover.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(x) could not be applied to property transactions relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 because the provision became effective only from AY 2018-19. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration.
Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation under Section 149. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment proceedings and assessment order.
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessment orders passed pursuant to earlier remand directions were barred by limitation under Section 153. The Tribunal set aside all consequential transfer pricing assessment orders dated 06.12.2024.
