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 ruling highlights that mere failure to file return, without concealment or tax evasion, does not automatically attract Section 270A penalty. Bona fide explanation and TDS compliance protected the taxpayer.
ITAT upheld deletion of additions where assessment was framed under the wrong provision. Since the year fell within the block period of a non-searched person, Section 153C was mandatory.
ITAT ruled that reassessment made pursuant to a quashed Section 263 order has no legal basis. Subsequent additions cannot stand once the revision itself is annulled.
The Tribunal ruled that TDS credit can be granted even if not fully reflected in Form 26AS, subject to verification. The deductee should not be penalized for the deductor’s failure to deposit tax.
The Tribunal clarified that Goetze (India) does not bar appellate authorities from entertaining new claims. Where all facts are on record, the claim must be examined on merits.
The ruling reiterates that adjudication based on incorrect material vitiates the entire order. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration of facts specific to the assessee.
While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification. Other legal grounds were treated as academic.
The ruling clarifies that reopening for AY 2016–17 must comply with the correct sanctioning authority requirement. Non-compliance invalidates the notice and all consequential actions under the Act.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
The Tribunal upheld penalty for non-filing of return under Explanation 3 but ruled that computation must reduce TDS and self-assessment tax paid before notice. Penalty was reduced from Rs. 8.56 lakh to Rs. 85,992.
