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 Chennai restored a trust’s appeal to the AO to verify if the asset’s cost was allowed as application of income before disallowing depreciation under Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenues appeal, ruling that Goodwill from a High Court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset under Section 32, rejecting the claim that it represents non-depreciable land value.
ITAT Surat rules company’s capital contribution to a partnership firm for business purposes is not a loan or advance, thus escaping deemed dividend tax u/s 2(22)(e).
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
The ITAT Pune set aside a best judgment assessment (u/s 144) that arbitrarily estimated an 8% net profit for a poultry farm and disallowed interest expense. The Tribunal ruled that substantive justice requires a fresh adjudication, remanding the case to the AO to allow the assessee a fair chance to present audited books and evidence.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.7.86 Cr treated as unexplained cash credit due to a sharp increase in proprietor’s capital shown in the tax return. The ITAT set aside the addition, finding a prima facie case of mere misclassification of partner overdrawn balances as capital, which should not be automatically treated as new unexplained income under S 68.
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.1.89 Cr, which the AO treated as a donation to other trusts and deemed income under S 11(3). The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that payments made to other NGOs for executing charitable projects under the Trust’s supervision and control constitute genuine application of income, not donation.
The central issue was the validity of a reassessment that led to additions for bogus purchases and unexplained cash. The ITAT confirmed the entire reassessment was void because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under S 143(2), affirming the deletion of all additions.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that government incentives to promote industrial development in disaster-hit Kutch and modernization under TUF scheme are capital receipts. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, reaffirming purpose test from Ponni Sugars and Sahney Steel.
