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 Tribunal held that deciding the appeal ex parte violated natural justice and remanded the FTC dispute for full reconsideration. appellate orders must not be passed without proper opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Mumbai held that issue of whether the land is an agricultural land or not needs more verification since department has not tested required conditions as prescribed u/s. 2(14)(iii). Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO.
The addition arose from adopting registration-date valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), while the assessee produced documents showing prior rights and payments. The Tribunal held the new evidence to be material and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee provided prima facie evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifts to the AO to make independent inquiries. Non-compliance renders additions invalid.
ITAT Surat relied on precedents (Hari Gopal, Marksans Pharma, Boparai P. Ltd.) to hold that ad-hoc or percentage-based additions do not trigger Section 271(1)(c) penalty. Appeal allowed, penalty deleted.
Appeal delayed by 252 days due to counsel’s oversight was condoned by ITAT citing reasonable diligence. Tribunal then reduced unexplained cash addition under Section 69A to ₹1.8 lakh using a fair estimation method.
The assessee’s claim of ₹98.4 lakh as selling expenses on property sale was disallowed by AO and upheld by CIT(A) without proper reasoning. ITAT remanded the case to ensure a detailed, reasoned examination of the submissions on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no longer in existence. With the foundational assessment gone, the penalty had no legal justification. The decision underscores the principle that penalty actions fail when their basis disappears.
The ITAT Rajkot ruled that exporters with turnover below ₹10 crore are equally eligible for 80HHC deductions, following the Supreme Court’s Avani Exports ratio. The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments cannot deny benefits to smaller exporters. The full deduction claimed by the assessee was restored, overturning AO and CIT(A) adjustments.
Given the assessee’s admission of incorrect turnover and failure to get accounts audited, the Tribunal found income estimation justified. However, finding that the AO’s 4% rate was slightly high and unsupported by specific defects, it revised the rate to 3.5%. Key takeaway: estimation must be justified and proportionate to facts on record.
