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 granting only one day to reply to a show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that additions made by treating real estate receipts as capital gains required fresh verification. The case was remanded as the earlier order failed to examine the assessee’s claim of business income under section 44AD.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed a tax appeal due to a 1,370-day delay, ruling that reliance on a tax consultant’s advice does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. Case underscores strict adherence to limitation rules in tax proceedings.
ITAT Bangalore held that assets received for testing purpose and there is no specific benefit that arises to the assessee with respect to usage of those assets, the same is not taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition based on ad hoc method not justifiable since assessee followed Percentage of Completion Method for revenue recognition adhering to guidance note on Accounting of Real Estate Transactions issued by ICAI. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The assessee showed that the ₹1.11 crore payment was an advance toward a bank-auctioned property, fully supported by bank transfers and later formalised via a registered deed. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot attract section 69. The addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid since the original scrutiny had already examined the issue and no fresh information indicating suppression or omission was found. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion was rejected. The ruling reinforces that section 147 requires tangible new material.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
ITAT Jaipur held that Urban Improvement Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of State within the meaning thereof. Hence, income is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
