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 involved exemption claim on maturity of an assigned Keyman Insurance Policy. The Tribunal held that Explanation 1 to Section 10(10D) includes assigned policies and applies retrospectively. It ruled that such receipts remain taxable despite assignment.
The tribunal held that taxing entire gross receipts is unsustainable and only profit embedded in receipts should be taxed. However, the matter was remanded as fresh evidence was admitted without giving the AO an opportunity to verify.
Tribunal held that once income is computed under section 44AD using stamp duty value as turnover, a separate addition under section 43CA leads to double taxation and is not permissible.
The case involved denial of deduction on interest earned from cooperative bank deposits. The Tribunal held that such income qualifies for deduction as it is derived from investments with a cooperative society.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
The issue involved arbitrary estimation of income at 20% and 5% of turnover. The Tribunal reduced it to 4% due to lack of supporting comparables and considering business realities. The key takeaway is that estimation must be reasonable and justified.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
ITAT held that where interest-free funds exceed advances, a presumption arises that such advances are made from own funds. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as no nexus with borrowed funds was proven.
The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered under section 44AD. Arbitrary substitution of a higher rate by the AO was held unsustainable.
ITAT held that entire receipts cannot be treated as unexplained when income is already offered to tax. Only unverifiable expenses can be disallowed.
