Income Tax : The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairne...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified e...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remai...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening....
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void because jurisdiction shifted between officers without a mandatory transfer order. It reaffirmed that proceedings without statutory jurisdiction are null and void.
Even though the assessee had opted for DTVSVA, the non-payment of tax meant the settlement did not materialize. The Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A) to examine all submitted evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity to contest additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that courses not having any approval or affiliation with any authority cannot be ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act granted since activity of imparting education within meaning of section 2(15).
Tribunal clarified that the Section 251 amendment uses the term ‘may set aside,’ meaning it is discretionary. Since the issue was already resolved in remand, addition was deleted.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices must be issued through NFAC under the 2022 Faceless Scheme. A JAO-issued notice violates the mandatory procedure and stands invalid.
Tribunal quashed CIT(A)’s cryptic order that upheld addition based solely on IDS declaration. The case is remanded to ensure a fair hearing, full analysis of the Joint Development Agreement, and accurate determination of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order on land ownership and capital-asset status. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication and proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
ITAT held that cash sales forming part of disclosed turnover cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credits. The ruling confirms that Section 68 does not apply when books are intact and evidence supports the sales.
ITAT held that the assessee operated as a commission agent, not a trader, making Section 44AD inapplicable. A reasonable 5% estimation on cash deposits was upheld.
