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 : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Se...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 15...
ITAT Mumbai held that the interconnect usage charges and roaming charges paid to Foreign Telecom Operators [FTOs] are not in the nature of royalty and hence not taxable in India. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS not justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favour of Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, holding that an FPI claiming capital gains exemption under the India-Singapore DTAA (Article 13) cannot be forced to set off prior year’s brought-forward losses against that exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
Kerala High Court held that appeals on identical issue can be disposed by passing single order containing single DIN. Thus, passing of single order for multiple appeal is legally valid. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
The issue was a ad-hoc addition on cash deposits sustained by the due to the absence of direct source-to-deposit correlation. The ITAT deleted the addition, holding that once the overall source (like agricultural or business income) is accepted on merits, does not require mathematical one-to-one matching.
ITAT Mumbai set aside orders taxing a money changer’s Rs.219 crore turnover, holding that neither u/s 68 addition nor arbitrary profit estimation is valid without verifying recreated books.
The ITAT set aside the crore addition, ruling that lower authorities acted mechanically by rejecting detailed evidence like invoices, bank statements, and vendor confirmations. The Tribunal mandated a remand, emphasizing that suspicion is not a valid basis for disallowance when substantial documentary proof is on record.
Mumbai ITAT clarified that perpetual leasehold rights are equivalent to ownership for the purpose of a specified agreement” under Section 45(5A)/194-IC, requiring 10% TDS on JDA monetary payments.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that a genuine business loss from penny stock trading, supported by contract notes and demat records, cannot be disallowed based solely on a third-party statement or generic investigation report.
The Tribunal ruled that the crore addition, made solely because the assessee’s petrol pump was allegedly unauthorized to accept SBNs, was incorrect. Since the cash deposits were sourced from historical, recorded cash sales accepted by the AO, taxing the deposits again would constitute impermissible double taxation.
