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 : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Nagpur held that a 50-year lease is not a transfer under Section 2(47)(vi) where the transaction is only a lease and not an a...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad allowed Section 10(10B) exemption on BSNL VRS compensation, following coordinate bench rulings despite no claim in ...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
The ITAT held that Section 69A could not be invoked as the director was not the owner of the unaccounted cash generated through over-invoicing. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition while affirming that the company owned the cash.
ITAT sustained the adoption of fair market value under Section 50C after finding that seized cash represented on-money from property transactions. The Tribunal upheld the valuation determined through the DVO process.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C requires the AO of the other person to independently assess whether seized documents have a bearing on that person’s income. A mechanical satisfaction note based solely on another officer’s communication was held invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that third-party WhatsApp messages and decoded chat entries lacked evidentiary value against the assessee without corroborative material. The Revenue failed to prove that any cash was actually paid over and above the registered sale consideration.
The Tribunal ruled that technical lapses in e-verification cannot override a taxpayer’s lawful entitlement to a refund. Once the delay was condoned and the return accepted, denial of the refund was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening proceedings cannot survive where the mandatory sanction under Section 151 is not obtained from the prescribed authority. The defect was held to be jurisdictional, rendering the notice invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure was unwarranted in the facts of the case. It reaffirmed that only the estimated profit arising from such purchases should be brought to tax.
The ITAT Mumbai held that when the reason recorded for reopening an assessment does not ultimately result in any addition, the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition on a completely different issue.
The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement alleging accommodation loans when documentary evidence proves identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Assessing Officer accepted income without making an addition after conducting enquiries. The ruling clarifies that revisionary powers require a lack of enquiry, not just a difference of opinion over the adequacy of verification.
