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 Delhi deletes ₹2.10 Cr addition u/s 68 for share call-money; statements not supplied or cross-examined. Identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of subscribers proven; ad-hoc disallowance also deleted.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is remanded, directing the AO to re-decide the penalty after the quantum order is finalized.
The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
Professional and technical advisory services rendered from India to foreign clients in connection with overseas securities offerings qualify for deduction under Section 80-O as there was coordinate Bench’s decision in the assessee’s own case for AY 1995-96
ITAT Delhi permits set-off of brought forward long-term and current year short-term capital losses against long-term capital gains, overruling CPC and CIT(A).
The Tribunal directed AO to compute Section 14A disallowance only for investments generating exempt income, following Rule 8D. The decision reinforces the need for precise calculation of disallowances against exempt income.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
CIT(A) wrongly rejected the assessee’s rectification petition under section 154 despite portal evidence. ITAT restored the appeal for fresh adjudication with full opportunity to submit evidence.
ITAT rules that an additional 54B claim omitted in the original return cannot be mechanically rejected. AO must examine the claim on merits, verifying capital gains utilisation and statutory conditions.
ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order where notices were sent to a wrong email ID, causing non-receipt by the assessee. The matter, including Sec.69A addition and denial of cross-examination, was remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
