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 found that bank documents showing repayment of the loan were relevant for deciding the Section 68 issue. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The assessee contended that cash deposits in the bank account represented sales proceeds from a medicine business. The ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify turnover details and determine taxable income on a reasonable basis.
The Pune ITAT held that estimating net profit at 18% of contract receipts was excessive in the absence of supporting material. Applying principles similar to presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, the Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 8% and granted substantial relief.
The ITAT held that Section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked where the assessee had not made the rent payments referred to in the tax audit report. The addition was traced to an inadvertent reporting error by the auditor.
The Tribunal ruled that a notice issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year requires sanction from the authority prescribed under Section 151. Since approval was obtained from the wrong authority, the reassessment proceedings were held to be illegal.
The Tribunal found that the assessees claim for deductions under Chapter VI-A required factual verification rather than outright rejection. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim after examining relevant documents and evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the trust had eventually filed Form 10 and sought condonation of delay. Since the issue was pending before the competent authority, the exemption dispute was restored for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that a bank guarantee wrongly reported as a contingent liability in the tax audit report could not be added to income when it was not claimed as an expense. It directed deletion of the ₹9.41 lakh addition made on the basis of the reporting error.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening contained incorrect figures and unsupported assumptions. It held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains taxable under Section 112 form part of total income and qualify for Section 87A rebate if the prescribed income limit is satisfied. It also held that Finance Act 2025 amendments restricting the rebate are prospective.
