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 quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. It held that re-examining already scrutinized facts does not justify reopening under section 147.
The issue involved levy of late fees on TDS returns processed before statutory amendment. The Tribunal held that absence of enabling provision made such levy invalid and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that valuation without giving the assessee an opportunity to object violates natural justice. It remanded the matter for fresh DVO assessment. The ruling stresses procedural compliance in valuation cases.
The Tribunal condoned delay due to reasonable cause and addressed valuation mismatch. It remanded the issue for DVO-based reassessment. The ruling balances procedural leniency with substantive justice.
The issue was whether addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on stamp value was justified despite conflicting private valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to obtain a DVO report and reconsider the addition as per law.
The Tribunal held that failure to specify a clear purpose in Form 10 invalidates accumulation claims under Section 11(2). However, it allowed reconsideration to verify actual utilization. The ruling highlights the need for precise disclosures.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules like Form 67 filing timelines are not meant to deny legitimate FTC. It directed the AO to grant credit after verifying evidence. The case highlights the primacy of DTAA provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that holding investments capable of generating exempt income does not trigger Section 14A. Without actual exempt income, no disallowance can be made. This decision curbs automatic application of Rule 8D.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without examining detailed reconciliation and evidence. It remanded the case for fresh verification, emphasizing proper factual analysis.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment relating to government service remains fully exempt under Section 10(10AA). It ruled that later absorption into a PSU does not change the nature of the benefit.
