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 Chandigarh allowed a delayed appeal of 457 days, holding that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay and the Limitation Act provisions applied. Appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
ITAT holds that the temples bona fide belief in statutory exemption justified a 607-day delay. Assessments and penalties are remanded for fresh review considering exemption applicability.
ITAT Chandigarh condoned an 87-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee acted on genuine advice about CPC TDS rectification, emphasizing substantial justice over technical dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. Key takeaway: cases dismissed mechanically must be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
The ITAT remitted the case for fresh assessment after the assessee challenged unexplained cash additions, highlighting the need for proper documentation and adherence to natural justice in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation for delay and held that denial of opportunity justified remand for fresh assessment under Section 147/144B.
Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE deposit sources under Section 69.
