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 ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains treated as bogus could not be added in a completed assessment year absent search-based incriminating evidence. Investigation reports alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that rectification proceedings under Section 154 are limited to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be a vehicle to dispute original additions. The appeal was therefore rightly rejected.
The Tribunal held that in completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during search. The addition under Section 68 was annulled as jurisdiction was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that mere circulation of funds among group entities does not prove round-tripping unless supported by cogent evidence. Suspicion alone cannot justify addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal found repeated factual errors in recorded reasons and notices. As the reopening lacked live nexus with escapement of income, it was struck down as a nullity.
ITAT ruled that mere reference to high-value transactions cannot justify reopening beyond three years. Absence of statutory conditions under Section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment void.
ITAT held that labeling transactions as accommodation entries without investigation is impermissible. With all three ingredients satisfied, the addition of ₹86.90 lakh was removed.
ITAT held that mere signature or rubber-stamp approval under Section 151 is invalid if it does not reflect independent satisfaction. The reassessment and consequent additions were quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated by NFAC before Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 were without jurisdiction. Since Section 151A became effective only upon notification, the entire reassessment and related penalty were quashed.
