Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified e...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remai...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening....
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter wa...
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
The Tribunal found that advances of ₹50 lakh each were duly recorded, confirmed, and repaid. With no unexplained credit involved, the addition of ₹90 lakh was deleted and the appeal allowed.
Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on declared income and 60% on unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that the scope of enquiry at the registration stage is limited to objects and genuineness of activities. The application was remanded after the trust undertook to delete clauses permitting overseas fund use.
Observing that the assessee invested the entire share of sale proceeds within two years and obtained possession, ITAT Pune allowed Section 54B exemption. The addition under Section 69A was consequently deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the Income Tax Act and hence income is not taxable in the hands of trust. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that year of acquisition is determined by payment and handing over of possession under Section 2(47)(v), not by later registration date. Earlier CII was allowed for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that after submission of primary creditor details, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the claim. The case was remanded to ensure fair opportunity and proper inquiry.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal held that mere booking of flats and receipt of token advances do not justify revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method without legally enforceable agreements.
