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 held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
The Tribunal held that where disallowance was accepted and taxes paid during revision under Section 263, penalty under Section 270A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and penalty deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata held that where assessment is completed under Section 143(3), alleged earlier non-compliance with notices stands impliedly condoned. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore unsustainable and deleted.
ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 was unsustainable. The creditors disclosure before the Settlement Commission supported the assessee’s claim.
ITAT held that Excel sheets recovered from a third party cannot justify addition without direct evidence linking the assessee. In absence of corroboration and cross-examination, the cash investment addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that CPC wrongly applied the outdated ₹3 lakh ceiling despite Notification No. 31/2023 enhancing the limit to ₹25 lakh. Since the retirement benefit was within the revised cap, full exemption under Section 10(10AA) was directed.
The ITAT held that fresh allotment of shares at a value below fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(viia). The term receives includes allotment, and the differential amount was rightly taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on non-compete fees despite Supreme Court ruling it as revenue expenditure, citing practical difficulty and revenue-neutral impact. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once provisions were disallowed and taxed in an earlier year, their subsequent reversal cannot be taxed again. It directed withdrawal of income offered to prevent double taxation.
