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 order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 14A cannot be applied when no exempt income is earned, deleting a ₹1.24 crore disallowance. The Tribunal also condoned a 99-day filing delay due to reasonable cause.
Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties under Section 37(1) and not deductible.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a ₹10 lakh cash addition treated as unexplained income under section 69 was fully explained through verified land compensation withdrawals. The source, identity, and availability of funds were documented by Revenue authorities, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted in audited books, they cannot be reclassified as unexplained cash credits. The addition of ₹41.74 lakh was struck down as it caused double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-payment of advance tax without first seeking clarification from the assessee. Since the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no advance tax was due, the ITAT restored the matter for fresh consideration. Key takeaway: procedural conditions under Section 249(4)(b) must be applied with fairness and opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Raipur set aside an ex-parte appellate order where the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
