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, in the case of T. Radhakrishnan Vs ITO, ruled a ₹8 lakh cash deposit was from the sale of casuarina trees, not unexplained income, and deleted the tax addition.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the allotment of a flat to the assessee during AY 2007-08 does not attract tax under Section 56(2)(v), as the provision at that time applied only to money received, not immovable property.
ITAT Bangalore held that non-compliance with tax notices due to notices being sent to wrong email IDs and the demise of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant constitutes sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.50,000 penalty under s.272A(1)(d), ruling COVID-19 hospitalization was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to multiple notices issued in quick succession.
CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed appeal alleging no submissions; ITAT noted documents were filed and directed fresh consideration, upholding principles of natural justice.
Technicalities Cannot Defeat Substantial Justice: ITAT Allows Delayed Appeal of Rural Senior Citizen- Email Notices Ignored by 74-Year-Old HUF Kartha – ITAT Bangalore Grants Relief & Restores Matter to NFAC
The ITAT Nagpur condoned a 489-day delay and, on merits, deleted an addition of ₹20,32,500 made under Section 69, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide substantive evidence or corroboration that the investment was made in the relevant assessment year, A.Y.
The court found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the declared profit rates were comparable to previous years, distinguishing the case from bogus purchases precedents.
ITAT Mumbai held the disallowance on basis that the ESOP expenses is contingent in nature cannot be sustained. However, amount claimed as expenditure, the basis of allocation of ESOP cost by GSGI etc., needs to be factually examined. Hence, matter remanded.
ITAT Chennai admitted fresh documents including confirmations and bank statements for unsecured loans and advances, remanding the matter to AO for de novo assessment to ensure natural justice.
