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 ...
ITAT Jaipur held that the amount paid before due date of filing the return of income is not supposed to be disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act even though the same was outstanding at the year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify the said aspect and pass appropriate order.
ITAT Agra restored AO’s 145(3) rejection and additions under sections 68 & 41(1) for re-verification, directing assessee to produce complete books and supporting documents. The matter requires factual verification to ensure substantial justice.
ITAT Pune deletes Rs.17.90L addition u/s 68 as LLP proved genuineness, identity & repayment of unsecured loans; appeal allowed in full.
The ITAT held that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition is deleted by a binding ITAT order. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no stay or direction from the High Court could revive the deleted quantum.
The Tribunal ruled that interest could not be disallowed when ample interest-free funds existed and no link was shown between overdraft borrowings and partners’ drawings. The key takeaway is that presumption of utilisation of own funds applies when mixed funds are available.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalty cannot continue after the underlying addition ceases to exist. The ruling highlights strict adherence to the principle of dependency between quantum and penalty.
The appellate orders for AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 were set aside as the deceased assessee was not heard. The legal heir is now allowed to present documents and have the appeal adjudicated afresh.
The Tribunal condoned a 960-day delay after finding that the assessee’s reliance on VSV settlement and pending rectification was a bona fide cause. It ruled that penalty under Section 271D is independent of quantum proceedings. The penalty appeal was wrongly dismissed as infructuous and has been remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that a fixed-deposit mismatch caused an unjustified ₹5.33-crore addition. Delay was condoned and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment with proper verification.
The Tribunal accepted that the 7.5% rebate was a pre-negotiated commercial discount and not an unaccounted cash return. As the seized loose sheets were unverified and unsupported by witnesses, the ₹9.06 crore addition failed.
