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 under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Section 153C was the correct legal route, leading to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. Applying the principle of consistency, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal examined whether duty drawback should be taxed on accrual or actual receipt. It held that as per law, duty drawback is taxable only in the year of receipt, and additions based on accrual were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. It remanded the matter for reconsideration after the earlier year’s decision.
Tribunal rules that Section 14A disallowance must be limited to investments yielding exempt income and orders recomputation under Rule 8D. It also allows ESOP expenses as a valid business deduction under Section 37(1), treating them as an ascertained liability and not a notional or capital expense.
The Tribunal held that consultancy payments for architectural services were not FTS since no technical knowledge was made available. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The issue was whether utilisation of earlier accumulated income qualifies for fresh exemption. The Tribunal held it amounts to double deduction as exemption was already claimed earlier.
The issue was whether purchases could be treated as bogus based on investigation reports. ITAT held that when documentary evidence and asset existence are proven, additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when supported by invoices, bank payments, and GST records. It ruled that absence of adverse evidence makes such additions unsustainable.
ITAT held that once an assessee adopts a prescribed valuation method under Rule 11UA, the AO cannot change or substitute it. The ruling reinforces taxpayer autonomy in selecting valuation approaches.
