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...
The ITAT Patna has set aside an income tax order, remanding the case of Waseem Alam back to the ITO. The tribunal granted the assessee a new opportunity to provide documents.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the tax department’s appeal, ruling that cash withdrawals of ₹8.89 crore were not unexplained. The tribunal upheld the assessee’s claim that the cash was used for business payments, as the tax officer had accepted the corresponding sales.
ITAT Mumbai remitted matter of taxability of industrial promotion subsidy back to CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication as details and documents demanded thereon were not furnished by the assessee.
Assessee-company was traded in electric security equipment systems and filed its income return declaring NIL income after setting off unabsorbed depreciation.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest on delayed VAT/GST and penalties for export obligation defaults are deductible u/s 37(1). However, loss on sale of assets was treated as short-term capital loss and could not be set off against business income.
ITAT Jodhpur quashes a rectification order, ruling a CIT(A) cannot change a decision under the guise of rectifying a mistake apparent from the record.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of CIT(A) order was ex-parte without hearing the assessee and there is sufficient cause shown by assessee in not attending hearings as per opportunities granted by CIT(A). Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A).
Addition under section 68 for Long-term capital gains (LTCG) from sale of shares allotted pursuant to a demerger scheme as bogus and alleged that price manipulation based on a report from the Investigation Wing of the Income tax Department was not justified as the assessee proved genuineness by comprehensive documentary evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere titular ownership of bank account is not conclusive. Thus, addition u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained without proper inquiry into identity of actual beneficiary of cash deposits.
