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 actual use of the property during the year is not a pre-condition for including it in the block of assets. Depreciation eligibility differs from eligibility for block inclusion under Section 50.
The Tribunal emphasized that without physical goods, exports and stock reconciliation would not be possible. Since quantitative records and gross profit remained consistent, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
The ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society on bank deposits qualifies as business income. Such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The ITAT ruled that dismissing an appeal solely for non-compliance is contrary to law. The appellate authority is obligated to frame issues and pass a reasoned order on each ground raised.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years is impermissible where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Since the notice violated Section 151, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal clarified that passing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is not a mere procedural defect. It held that participation in proceedings does not validate a void assessment.
ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely because of an incorrect disclosure in the return. Documentary proof of running a school was decisive.
The Tribunal deleted addition under Section 69C, holding that payments made by company on behalf of director were properly explained through ledger records and imprest arrangement.
