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 held that reopening of assessment is invalid when reasons lack details like transaction nature, parties, and dates. It emphasized that vague information and absence of independent application of mind cannot justify reassessment. The ruling reinforces strict standards for valid reopening under tax law.
Even though the assessee had no business operations, claims based on disclosed assets and records were held bona fide. The Tribunal ruled that such claims do not amount to inaccurate particulars or misreporting.
The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verification. The absence of direct linkage and corroboration led to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that cash deposits were supported by disclosed sale consideration and documentary evidence. It held that unverified objections could not override confirmed transactions.
The case examined whether scrutiny selection without meeting CBDT conditions was valid. The ITAT held that failure to satisfy mandatory criteria invalidated the notice and entire assessment.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. It ruled that invoking extended time under Section 149 without satisfying this condition is illegal.
ITAT found that assessment and appeal orders were passed without proper opportunity due to communication issues. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting fair hearing.
The Tribunal upheld relief where the assessee provided proof of agricultural activities and income. It rejected additions based solely on statements without investigation. The case underscores the importance of documentary support.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
