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 Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
DCIT Vs Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) No Incriminating Evidence, Only Excel — ITAT Deletes ₹25 Cr Addition in Moser Baer Group Case Search was conducted on the Moser Baer Group, covering Assessee’s premises. During search, an Excel sheet titled “Funds Position” was found on a group employee’s laptop, showing loan entries. […]
ITAT Amritsar partly allows an appeal, reducing income addition from Rs. 3.88 lakhs to Rs. 6,000 for specified bank note deposits after SEO demonetization.
ITAT held that the delay in filing appeal was caused by genuine reasons, including the taxpayer’s age and misunderstanding of online procedures. The case was remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer made a ₹50 lakh addition solely on estimation without any supporting material, and deleted the addition as no evidence linked the assessee to alleged bogus share transactions.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS need not be deducted on year-end expense provisions where payees are unidentifiable and liability crystallizes later. Case remanded for factual verification.
ITAT Mumbai held that consideration from a redevelopment agreement is taxable in hands of individual members, not co-operative housing society. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹4.97 crore addition, confirming that society acted merely as a representative.
ITAT held that once income is accounted in the Profit & Loss statement, further addition by the tax authority is unlawful. The order restores the correct claim of losses and eliminates double addition.
ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found the additional disallowance of ₹4.11 crore excessive and unsupported by evidence.
