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 held that mere acceptance of demonetized currency during the demonetization period cannot justify addition under Section 68 when identity, genuineness, and source are established. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Section 54F Deduction Remanded as Tenants’ Affidavits Suggest Commercial Use of Properties, No Addition Without Corroborative Evidence: ITAT Deletes ₹50 Lakh On-Money Addition in Property Deal and Presumption Under Section 132(4A) Cannot Be Applied Against Assessee When Documents Seized from Third Party
The Tribunal deleted the ₹60 lakh addition under Section 68 after noting that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels and the lenders identity was established.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
The Tribunal found that denial of foreign tax credit during return processing was improper where Form 67 and the return were filed together. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow credit.
Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan addition after finding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness established through PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and TDS records.
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of PF and ESI contributions to the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to ensure consistent adjudication.
