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 ...
ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remaining unexplained amount was reduced on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. As the mandatory requirement of year-wise satisfaction was not met, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening. In such cases, other additions cannot be made without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148.
The approving authority issued one common approval for multiple years without demonstrating examination of records. The Tribunal ruled such ritualistic approval vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdictional validity of reassessment based on new information. However, the addition was restored to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that failure to indicate the precise charge in a Section 274 notice renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal emphasized that the test under Section 57(iii) is one of purpose and connection. As the assessee demonstrated reasonable nexus between borrowings and interest income, the deduction was upheld.
Holding that Rule 46A mandates recording reasons and giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut new evidence, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the issue.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
The Tribunal found that advances of ₹50 lakh each were duly recorded, confirmed, and repaid. With no unexplained credit involved, the addition of ₹90 lakh was deleted and the appeal allowed.
