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 ...
Chennai ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after three years must comply strictly with Section 151(ii) approval requirements. Failure to obtain sanction from the proper authority vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Proceedings must be initiated strictly under Section 159 against legal representatives.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey number error. It directed deletion of the duplicate addition made by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the issue was highly debatable at the relevant time.
The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revealing the basis of the outstanding demand.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions exceeding ₹10.57 crore made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) after finding that the Assessing Officer wrongly adopted an amended valuation approach retrospectively. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion in entirety.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent verification of alleged accommodation entries. Reliance solely on third-party investigation reports was rejected.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to show independent application of mind or establish a nexus between investigation material and escaped income.
ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that the seized cash was meant for inter-branch transfer. The Tribunal found the explanation unsupported and inconsistent with available records.
