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 held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since the Tribunal had issued no direction to tax ₹5 crore as income from other sources, the addition was deleted.
The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investment was made during the assessment year in question. Documentary evidence showing the transaction belonged to an earlier year remained uncontroverted.
ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effect order was invalid.
ITAT Chennai held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied through TDS processing for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A was introduced only prospectively.
ITAT Chennai held that estimating income at 8% of turnover was excessive where the assessee’s accounts were tax-audited and past profit history reflected lower margins. The Tribunal restricted the addition by adopting a 4% profit rate based on the facts of the case.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the recorded reasons for reopening were undated and failed to establish compliance with Section 148 requirements. The assessment was quashed as a jurisdictional defect.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order on penalty under Section 270A and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the penalty issue should be reconsidered along with the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 could not be invoked where YEIDA payments were recorded in the books and funded through an RBI-registered NBFC. The ruling emphasizes that explained and documented sources of investment cannot be treated as unexplained investments.
ITAT held that execution and registration of a sale deed completes the transfer for capital gains purposes. Delayed receipt of sale consideration or dishonoured cheques cannot postpone taxability when the registered transfer remains valid.
ITAT Delhi accepted the assessee’s contention that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The ruling restricted the addition to the exempt income of ₹2.63 lakh despite a higher Rule 8D computation.
