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 Cochin has ruled that a charitable trust’s belated return filing for AY 2014-15 is not a valid reason to deny an exemption under Section 11. The court clarified that the condition for timely filing became a legal requirement only from AY 2018-19.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside a Rs.35.05 crore income addition to Keezhuparamba Service Co-operative Bank. The court remanded the matter for fresh verification, noting that the Assessing Officer mistakenly clubbed members’ deposits with share capital.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside an addition under Section 68, ruling that a taxpayer’s claim of transferring funds from a housing loan to a capital account requires further verification. The court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
Mumbai ITAT has restored a bogus purchases case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing, ruling that CIT(A) erred by partially restricting the addition without giving the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence.
ITAT annulled demands for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, holding that corpus donations, capital expenditure, and statutory accumulation by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust qualify as charitable application, and cash deposits during demonetisation are not taxable under Section 68.
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Nilesh Shirish Mehta, setting aside a reassessment order for AY 2015-16. The tribunal found the Section 148 notice, issued after April 1, 2021, to be time-barred and invalid based on concessions made by the Department before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
Tribunal held that technical issues in filing Form 56F cannot bar deduction under Section 10AA. Meghmani LLP’s Rs. 4.82 crore claim allowed as form submission was directory, not mandatory.
Karnataka High Court has ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, following a Supreme Court precedent.
The ITAT ruled that a CIT(A) must independently verify evidence before deleting a tax addition, even if the AO fails to provide a remand report.
