Income Tax : The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairne...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified e...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remai...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening....
The issue was denial of appellate remedy despite income being below taxable limits. The Tribunal ruled that appeals must be admitted and decided on merits in such cases.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the limitation period is valid. The Tribunal held that a notice issued beyond the prescribed time is void, nullifying the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether DVO-based valuation could inflate long-term capital gains for a co-owner. The Tribunal held that once co-owner relief applies, the DVO-based addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether an appeal can be dismissed outright for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal held that appellate authorities must first examine if advance tax was actually payable before rejecting the appeal.
The dispute concerned taxability of gains from sale of land located outside municipal boundaries. The Tribunal ruled that such land remains agricultural in nature and is not chargeable to capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority decided the case without proper hearing and remanded the issue of section 54F deduction for fresh examination of additional evidence.
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses merely alleging cash payments without evidence. The Tribunal ruled that expenses supported by records and banking transactions cannot be disallowed on presumptions.
The decision limits tax exposure by holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetization should be assessed on an estimated profit basis when business records are accepted.
The dispute involved taxing unexplained increases in partners capital in the firms assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that such additions, if any, can only be examined in the hands of partners and not the partnership firm.
The case addressed whether exemption could be disallowed through prima facie adjustment under section 143(1). The Tribunal held such denial impermissible and ordered fresh consideration.
