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 admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be used to penalize deduction under an incorrect TDS provision when tax was actually deducted. The expenditure disallowance was rightly deleted.
It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal clarified that CPC could not make prima facie adjustments denying Section 80P deduction before the Finance Act, 2021 amendment. The disallowance made in 2019 was held invalid and deleted.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal upheld 200% penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income through ineligible deductions. Admitted incorrect claims were treated as conscious misrepresentation, not a bonafide error.
The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case under the mistaken belief that no scrutiny assessment had been made. Such factual error and absence of new incriminating material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
The case involved alleged bogus job-work transactions linked to a third party. The Tribunal found the receipts were genuine business income duly audited and taxed, leading to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based merely on audit objection without independent application of mind is unsustainable. An audit note cannot replace the Assessing Officers reasoned belief.
ITAT deleted the addition made under Section 153C as no incriminating material directly linked the buyer to alleged cash payments. Reliance solely on third-party pen drive data and statements was held insufficient.
