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 observed that the assessee discharged its burden under Section 68 by filing confirmations, financials, and banking records of the lender. In absence of contrary evidence, the onus shifted to the Revenue. The addition was rightly deleted.
ITAT Mumbai observed that additions based solely on estimation do not establish concealment of income. Consequently, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted for both assessment years.
The Tribunal ruled that mere reliance on Sales Tax Department information and unserved notices cannot justify full addition. Since turnover and quantitative records were accepted, only estimated profit could be taxed.
The Tribunal set aside denial of exemption where authorities taxed interest and other receipts without examining eligibility under Section 11. The issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that entries found in a third-party pen drive cannot justify addition without independent corroboration. Failure to allow cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, leading to deletion.
ITAT deleted ₹60 lakh addition as the Revenue relied solely on a third-party confession without independent verification. Documentary evidence such as confirmations, ITRs and bank statements discharged the assessee’s onus.
ITAT ruled that once the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, other additions cannot survive. MAT demand under Section 115JB was therefore struck down as unlawful.
The Tribunal deleted ₹2 lakh cash addition as no incriminating material directly linked the assessee to alleged on-money. Reliance solely on pen drive data and third-party statements without cross-examination was held insufficient.
Tribunal ruled that once consideration was received and possession handed over in an earlier year, subsequent registration cannot shift taxability. Revenue’s reliance on Insight Portal data was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
