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 Visakhapatnam, in case of Subbarao Jaladi v. ITO, set aside an addition of ₹6,37,16,100/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained bank cash deposits.
The ITAT set aside a massive unexplained investment addition made on a joint bank account, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider vital documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case is remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the documents, which claim the deposits were company business, not personal income.
The ITAT deleted a Rs. 23.30 Lakh protective addition made in the firm’s hands under Section 68, as the corresponding cash deposit had already been offered to tax by the partners. The Tribunal ruled that once the real recipient (partners) has paid tax, the protective assessment on the firm becomes redundant and cannot lead to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s decision to restrict lakh addition to 1% in a client code modification case, ruling the assessee acted solely as a broker, not a beneficiary.
ITAT Chennai restored a lakh addition made u/s 115BBC to a trust, granting one chance to furnish complete donor details (name, address, PAN, and mode of receipt).
ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal in Samir N. Shah Vs ITO, holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars cannot be levied when the underlying income addition is made solely by estimating a gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases, in the absence of concrete evidence like seized material or cash transactions.
The Tribunal confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. Following Calcutta High Court precedents, the ITAT rejected the Revenue’s attempt to apply the prospective Finance Act 2022 amendment to the relevant assessment year (AY 2014-15).
This ruling invalidates an income tax addition that relied entirely on electronic data (an excel sheet) seized from a third party without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The ITAT stressed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, clear linking of the assessee to the data, and providing due process, the addition made was illegal and unsustainable in law.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
The ITAT struck down the Rs. 8.19 crore addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) by ignoring the assessee’s share valuation based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The decision affirms that the AO lacks the authority to substitute their own value when a recognized method under Rule is used, and the underlying asset valuation is further corroborated by a higher DVO valuation.
