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 reaffirmed that providing PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and financial records satisfies statutory requirements. With no defects found by the AO, the addition was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening of assessment is void where the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to communication of sanction under Section 151. Such procedural lapse renders the entire reassessment null and void.
TAT Kolkata ruled that reopening based on unverified foreign information amounted to borrowed satisfaction. Since the sanctioning authority granted approval mechanically, the reassessment was declared void.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271D if reasonable cause is established under Section 273B.
ITAT Indore held that in absence of evidence, expense on fuel cost occurred on deployment of JCB’s on rent needs to be ascertained by way of proper and detailed empirical analysis. Accordingly, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal because it did not contest the CIT(A)s ruling that the reassessment notice was legally invalid. Without challenging the jurisdictional defect, the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed and books of account remain intact, purchase additions require stronger evidence. In the absence of contrary material, the ₹35.48 lakh disallowance was deleted.
Although stamp law generally places registration costs on buyers, the Tribunal held that parties may contract otherwise. Since the sale deed clearly assigned the burden to the seller, the ₹5.47 lakh disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal reversed additions made towards alleged suppressed rent and bogus salary expenses. It emphasized factual consistency, business necessity, and absence of tax avoidance in granting relief to the assessee.
