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 quashes DCIT’s 153C assessments for Piyush Bongirwar, holding that a single diary page pertaining only to AY 2013-14 cannot justify assessment for later years without specific incriminating material.
Mumbai ITAT sets aside CIT(A) remand for LTIMindtree; holds AO’s S144 mention was clerical, assessment was S143(3). Directs CIT(A) to decide TP issue on merits.
Agra ITAT confirms deletion of Rs. 6.77 Cr addition u/s 68, ruling the scrap trader’s bank credits were fully explained by GST, loans, VAT refund, and internal transfers, backed by evidence.
Bangalore ITAT restored a case involving Rs.1.49 crore in unexplained cash deposits for fresh assessment, directing the AO to re-examine the source and the CIT(A)’s application of the peak credit method.
A summary of ITAT Chennai’s order in Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO, which sustained both unexplained investment under Section 69 and professional receipts found via Form 26AS but not declared in income tax return.
Chennai ITAT rules Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a company tax and not covered by DTAA, rejecting the refund claim. Separately, it capped the TDS disallowance at 30% under Section 40(a)(ia).
The ITAT Chennai, in the case of T. Radhakrishnan Vs ITO, ruled a ₹8 lakh cash deposit was from the sale of casuarina trees, not unexplained income, and deleted the tax addition.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the allotment of a flat to the assessee during AY 2007-08 does not attract tax under Section 56(2)(v), as the provision at that time applied only to money received, not immovable property.
ITAT Bangalore held that non-compliance with tax notices due to notices being sent to wrong email IDs and the demise of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant constitutes sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.50,000 penalty under s.272A(1)(d), ruling COVID-19 hospitalization was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to multiple notices issued in quick succession.
