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 once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
ITAT allowed additional evidence filed by the legal heir and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The key takeaway is that justice requires giving opportunity where evidence was earlier unavailable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided affidavits, bank statements, and financials of contributors. The addition was deleted as the source stood satisfactorily explained.
The tribunal ruled that failure to strike off irrelevant portions in penalty notice makes it legally defective. Such ambiguity invalidates the entire penalty levy.
The Tribunal held that audited accounts cannot replace documentary evidence for claiming application of income. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the AO relied only on general information without corroborative material. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion cannot replace proof in tax proceedings.
The notice issued after the permissible window calculated under TOLA and judicial rulings was held void. The case highlights strict adherence to limitation timelines.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot sustain addition under Section 68 without issuing notice under Section 251(2). It also noted that the AO had already accepted evidences of investors.
ITAT condoned an 820-day delay due to a bona fide jurisdictional mistake. It held that SBN deposits from members cannot be treated as unexplained when the source is properly explained.
The tribunal held that arbitrary estimation of agricultural income without supporting data is unsustainable. It ruled that additions cannot be made based on guesswork without evidence.
