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 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be sustained where the show cause notice and assessment order fail to specify whether the allegation is under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the penalty after finding the notice lacked a definite charge.
The ITAT Lucknow upheld deletion of the addition after finding that the cash deposits represented business receipts arising from disclosed sales and were duly recorded in the books of account. It held that section 69A could not be invoked on the facts of the case.
The ITAT Delhi deleted the addition under section 69A after finding that the assessee had substantiated the source of the jewellery through a Will, affidavit, purchase bills, bank statements, and other documentary evidence. It held that the jewellery stood satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT Raipur upheld the disallowance of 12.5% of disputed purchases after finding that the assessee failed to establish the actual physical movement and consumption of the goods. The Tribunal held that invoices, banking records and GST documents alone were insufficient in the absence of supporting transport and production evidence.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an ₹80 lakh addition after holding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender companies. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot rest solely on suspicion of circular transactions without corroborative evidence.
ITAT Chennai held that Assessing Officer should have allowed 200% weighted deduction on DSIR-certified capital expenditure under section 35(2AB). It also directed verification of uncertified scientific research expenditure for deduction under section 35(1)(iv).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessments were invalid because the ACIT was not shown to have jurisdiction under CBDT Instructions or the Income-tax Act. The assessment orders were quashed without examining the merits.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note did not record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income. The assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that BSNL VRS-2019 compensation qualifies for complete exemption under Section 10(10B) despite the assessee not claiming it in the original return. It directed the Revenue to recompute income and issue the eligible refund.
