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 ...
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
The ITAT ruled the reassessment void because the AO failed to verify Insight data against the taxpayer’s filed return, leading to a factual mismatch and generic reasons for reopening. The decision confirms that mechanical satisfaction based on unverified information lacks the “live link” required for a valid Section 147 jurisdiction.
The ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed additions totaling over ₹4.78 crore for unexplained partners’ capital and unsecured loans. The Tribunal ruled that the firm failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by relying on unaudited and unsubstantiated documents.
The ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment orders for three assessment years (AY 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17) based on fundamental legal flaws. The ruling confirms that reassessments are invalid if initiated on wrong or substituted reasons, if they are time-barred (following the Supreme Court’s concession in the Rajeev Bansal case), or if they proceed without valid statutory sanction from the competent authority.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Rs.10.25 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement that was subsequently retracted, citing coercion. The court found the loans were genuine, routed through banking channels, supported by evidence, and later repaid with TDS deducted interest.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Section 68 addition of Rs.1.67 crore, holding that loans proven to be repaid through banking channels with TDS deducted on interest cannot be treated as bogus accommodation entries.1 The ruling emphasizes that additions based solely on a retracted survey statement lack evidentiary value, especially without corroborating material.
ITAT ruled that CPC’s adjustment denying the Section 80IE deduction without prior intimation may violate Section 143(1)(a); the matter was remanded to verify if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.
This ITAT Ahmedabad decision rules that the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) cannot summarily reject a new manufacturing company’s claim for the 22% tax rate under section 115BAB during processing under section 143(1) without issuing a prior intimation. The Tribunal held that the eligibility for the concessional rate is a debatable issue that cannot be adjusted as a “mistake apparent from record.”
The Tribunal upheld that a provision made for arrears of VDA, PFD, and HRA pursuant to a High Court directive represented a crystallized liability. Since the assessee’s obligation was judicially enforceable, the expenditure was allowable. Disallowance was correctly limited to 30% under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS non-compliance.
