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 Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The issue was whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant year.
The issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely because the notes ceased to be legal tender.
The ITAT held that once registration under Section 12AB was ultimately granted on the basis of the original application, the doctrine of relating back applied. As a result, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the relevant assessment year.
The ITAT Chennai ruled that funds received by a Chartered Accountant for remitting clients’ taxes could not be treated as unexplained money. Documentary evidence showing corresponding tax payments led to deletion of the additions.
The Chandigarh ITAT ruled that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii), holding that post-2009 amendments govern the issue despite claims for exemption under Section 10(37).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a protective addition cannot be deleted merely because a substantive addition has been confirmed at the first appellate stage if the substantive addition is still under challenge. The ruling emphasizes that protective additions may continue until final adjudication.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained credits when they originated from duly recorded business sales accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent mistake in Schedule 112A relating to the acquisition period of mutual fund units could be rectified under Section 154. Since the evidence showed that the assets were acquired before 31.01.2018, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains after verification.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
