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 case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences within 10% fall within permissible tolerance. The ruling protects genuine transactions from arbitrary additions.
The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Section 151 is jurisdictional and must be from the correct authority. The entire reassessment was quashed for non-compliance.
The case examines whether estimated expense disallowances can be made without rejecting books of account. ITAT held such additions invalid, emphasizing that Section 145(3) rejection is a prerequisite. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary disallowances.
ITAT Mumbai rules that Section 11(5) investment shortfall of earlier years cannot be taxed in the current year, holding amendment prospective. Only current year violation is taxable, restricting addition to ₹5 lakh and deleting ₹1.34 crore.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was based on already examined facts without fresh material. The ruling reinforces that reopening on mere change of opinion is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief. It held that Form 67 filed during rectification proceedings is valid compliance, allowing reconsideration of FTC claim.
The Tribunal condoned a 1394-day delay, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural lapses. It ruled that BSNL VRS compensation qualifies as exempt retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), allowing full tax relief and refund.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
