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 Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction cannot confer valid authority to complete an assessment. It quashed the assessment after finding that the jurisdictional officer also failed to issue a fresh statutory notice.
The ITAT held that payments made to directors represented arranger fees and not prohibited sub-brokerage under SEBI Regulations. It deleted the entire disallowance under Section 37(1), finding no violation of law.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income and issue the refund due to the assessee.
The ITAT observed that registration undertaken solely to satisfy a banks mortgage requirement cannot automatically attract tax under Section 56(2)(x). It restored the matter for fresh examination of the true nature of the transaction.
The ITAT held that the incorrect payment date mentioned in the Tax Audit Report was an obvious typographical mistake and not evidence of delayed PF payment. The issue was remanded for limited verification, with the deduction to be allowed upon confirmation of the challans.
The Pune ITAT deleted a ₹10 lakh addition after finding no reliable evidence that the assessee paid cash while purchasing a flat. It held that payments made through banking channels cannot be disregarded merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of information arising from a search in the case of a third party fell within the exceptions to Section 148A. It ruled that issuance of a notice under Section 148A was without authority of law and could not confer jurisdiction. The reassessment was accordingly quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without examining whether the source of the assessee’s cash payments had been explained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on the legal ground.
