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 advance tax cannot be treated as delayed when the amount is debited from the taxpayer’s bank account on the due date. Interest under Section 234C was quashed as the delay in challan generation was beyond the assessee’s control.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the addition was made solely on Investigation Wing inputs without proper verification or disclosure of details to the taxpayer.
Revenue argued that control and fixed hours created employment. The Tribunal ruled that such controls ensure discipline and contract enforcement, not employment. Result: TDS under Section 194J sustained.
The Revenue treated cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A despite matching withdrawals and opening cash balance. The Tribunal ruled that redeposit of available cash cannot be taxed as unexplained income.
The ITAT ruled that ad-hoc estimation of sundry creditors as ceased liabilities is not permissible when purchases and trading results are accepted. Section 41(1) can be invoked only on proven remission or cessation, not assumptions.
The Tribunal held that reopening AY 2012–13 after a post-2021 search was barred by limitation. Applying Supreme Court guidance, it ruled that older limitation periods protect concluded assessments from retrospective reopening.
Since the reassessment notice was barred by limitation, the tribunal did not examine capital gains issues on merits. The ruling confirms that jurisdictional defects override substantive tax disputes.
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
