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 Delhi ruled that the CIT(A) cannot reclassify an addition under a different provision of the Income-tax Act without issuing a specific notice to the taxpayer. The decision reinforces the limits of appellate powers and upholds principles of natural justice.
The ITAT ruled that deduction of TDS does not excuse failure to file an income tax return. The decision emphasizes that income discovered through departmental records can attract penalty for under-reporting under Section 270A.
The Tribunal ruled that audited books and quantitative reconciliation supported the genuineness of agricultural commodity purchases. In the absence of contrary evidence, arbitrary disallowance of purchases could not be sustained.
The Delhi ITAT found that the Assessing Officer lacked legal authority to reopen assessment years lying outside the ten-year block period computed under Section 153C. Revenue’s appeals challenging the CIT(A)’s decision were dismissed.
The Bangalore ITAT held that ambiguity in the penalty proceedings rendered the levy unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the statutory framework under Section 270A.
Inter/Intra Circle Remittance Balance represented only internal transfer and reconciliation entries relating to assets and stock in transit between different Circles of the Assessee company. Since no expenditure or deduction had been claimed and the balances did not represent any real income or loss, the addition of Rs.1527.40 crores made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot assess the full transaction value in the hands of a confirming party absent proof of beneficial ownership. The decision underscores the importance of establishing actual receipt of consideration.
ITAT deleted the addition after finding that neither possession nor ownership had passed during the relevant assessment year. The decision emphasizes that actual transfer, not mere intention to sell, determines taxability.
ITAT held that proving the mode of payment is not enough to secure deduction for political contributions where evidence points to a bogus donation scheme. Taxpayers must establish the authenticity of the entire transaction.
The Court ruled that an order passed over three years after the statutory deadline under Section 153(5) was without jurisdiction and void. It held that failure to act within the prescribed period renders the appellate order final and enforceable.
