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 ...
Penalty was imposed alleging misreporting due to belated PF/ESI remittance. The Tribunal ruled that a disclosed claim later disallowed does not fall under any clause of Section 270A(9), and deleted the penalty.
The AO added expenditure based solely on a mistaken audit report entry. The ITAT deleted the addition after confirming from the concerned party that no transaction occurred.
ITAT held that goodwill arising from acquisition of a business as a going concern represents a bundle of commercial and business rights. Following Supreme Court precedent, depreciation under Section 32 was allowed for AY 2018–19.
The ITAT held that for a builder following the project completion method, income arises on handing over possession and not merely on registration of sale agreement. The addition of entire sale consideration under Section 2(47) was ruled unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned during the year. It deleted both the additional disallowance and the assessee’s own mistaken disallowance.
The ITAT held that leasing hospital property to a group company did not violate Section 13 since trustees’ shareholding was below statutory limits. Denial of exemption under Section 11 and substitution of notional rent were ruled unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine foreign information sources amounted to violation of natural justice. Additions based on unverified documents were therefore invalid.
The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairness. The case was sent back for proper scrutiny of actual net winnings.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data without independent corroboration or cross-examination.
The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter was remanded for verification to avoid wrongful taxation in the current assessment year.
