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 upheld dismissal of appeal for non-payment of tax under Section 249(4)(b). However, it remanded the case after finding that the addition based on Form 26AS may be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that updated returns filed during ongoing assessment proceedings are not valid under Section 139(8A). The key takeaway is that taxpayers cannot correct returns once scrutiny has begun, though limited relief may still be granted.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The matter concerns two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015–16 and 2019–20. Both appeals arise from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since […]
The High Court held that once a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes prior tax liabilities, reassessment cannot be initiated. The notice under Section 148 was set aside. The ruling confirms that extinguished claims cannot be revived through reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits during demonetization. Mere disclosure in books was insufficient without proof of genuineness and credibility.
The issue was whether sale of agricultural land attracts capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that land situated beyond prescribed municipal limits is not a capital asset. The key takeaway is that location plays a decisive role in taxability.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C may not apply if properties are held as stock-in-trade. It remanded the case to verify whether transactions were part of real estate business.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an unauthorized officer renders the entire assessment invalid. It ruled that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured and quashed the assessment.
With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
The tribunal held that addition under Section 69C is not valid where expenditure is properly recorded and the source is explained. The key takeaway is that documented transactions through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained.
