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 clarified that transfer of case between officers in the same city does not require a new notice or hearing, reinforcing that procedural continuity under Section 127(4) ensures jurisdictional validity.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, fully upholding the addition for salary kickbacks based on overwhelming seized evidence showing a routine, systematic practice. The Tribunal confirmed that this consistent pattern justified extrapolation for the full year.
ITAT Jaipur quashed an addition of Rs.14.47 lakh made under Section 69A because the assessment was framed by a Jaipur-based AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee residing in Sri Ganganagar. The Tribunal ruled that the objection to jurisdiction, raised by the assessee and unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the entire assessment order void ab initio.
ITAT Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, holding that once substantive additions related to payments made by assessee were upheld by Tribunal and CIT(A) in cases of receiving parties, corresponding protective additions against assessee must be deleted.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that order passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the said order was also not served. Thus, order is set aside and matter restored back.
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the interest disallowance, applying the principle of consistency because the Revenue had previously accepted the assessee’s classification of net interest income under Income from Other Sources in earlier scrutiny assessments. The court found no justification to deviate from this accepted treatment for the current year.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh disallowance of employees’ PF contribution, ruling that payment made on the next working day is timely when the statutory due date falls on a Sunday. The ruling applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, confirming that the delay was valid and unavoidable.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Rs.34.65 crore addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, ruling that requirement to prove source of source only applies from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. Tribunal held that proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan creditors was sufficient for year under appeal.
The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)’s pragmatic decision to restrict an addition of ₹8.21 crore for unexplained cash deposits to a 5% profit margin on the total deposits. This estimation was deemed reasonable, considering the nature of the assessee’s pottery trading business where full documentation was absent, balancing commercial reality with revenue protection.
