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 appellate authority had rejected the exemption claim on limitation grounds, but ITAT held that the assessee’s explanation regarding bond availability warranted verification. The case was sent back to the Assessing Officer.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
Pune ITAT ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The decision reinforces the broad scope of the provision.
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 68 does not distinguish between business advances and loans when unexplained credits appear in the books. The key takeaway is that real estate developers must prove the source and credibility of customer advances.
Mumbai ITAT held that income from house property can be assessed only in the hands of an owner or deemed owner under the Income-tax Act. Since ownership of the land and building remained with MSRTC, lease receipts could not be taxed under the house property head.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice must clearly state the specific limb of Section 270A being invoked. Absence of such specification was held fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The ITAT Jaipur held that deduction under Section 54F cannot be denied merely due to delay in completing construction when the assessee had substantially constructed a habitable residential house within the prescribed period. The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice. The issue relating to notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer was left open for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai condoned a 524-day delay in filing an appeal after finding that the assessee remained unaware of the assessment order due to communications being routed through his tax consultant. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.
