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 ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The issue was whether penalty for bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal held that concealment through non-genuine purchases attracts penalty, confirming the levy.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether income from sale of foundation seeds qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that such activities involve basic agricultural operations and allowed exemption under Section 10(1).
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate claims despite multiple opportunities. It emphasized that procedural non-compliance weakens legal claims.
The issue was denial of deduction under Section 54F as a fresh claim not made in return. The ruling remanded the matter, holding such claims can be examined if supported by facts.
The issue was whether full bank deposits of a commission agent can be taxed as unexplained income. The ruling held only commission income taxable, with 8% estimation upheld as reasonable.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond 3 years is valid when escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The ruling held such notice invalid under Section 149, and the key takeaway is strict adherence to limitation rules.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to specify underreporting or misreporting in notice invalidates penalty. Proper identification of charge is mandatory for valid proceedings.
