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 Chennai held that merely opting for Vivad-Se-Vishwas does not end an appeal unless settlement is completed; dismissal by assumption was invalid and appeal was restored for merits adjudication.
The issue was whether reopening based only on portal information is valid. The Tribunal held that absence of independent inquiry and tangible material vitiates reassessment and nullifies the addition.
The tribunal held that any adjustment while processing a return under Section 143(1) requires prior intimation to the assessee. Disallowance made without issuing such notice is invalid in law.
The tribunal held that large cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be taxed as unexplained income when the assessee proves he acted only as a commission agent. Only commission income, and not gross deposits, is taxable in such cases.
The issue was dismissal of appeals for non-payment of admitted tax without hearing on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeals, holding that the assessee deserved an opportunity to explain advance tax liability.
The ITAT ruled that once the assessee establishes the source of investment, addition for unexplained investment cannot survive. Direct payment by a financier through demand draft explained the transaction.
The case examined taxation of a charitable entity when registration under Section 12A was unsettled. While scrutiny selection was upheld, the assessment was remanded to await the outcome of registration proceedings.
Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that estimating profits at 1% was excessive and moderated it to 0.50%.
The Tribunal ruled that interest earned on Government grants parked under official directions cannot be divorced from the original grant. Denial of exemption was found to defeat the purpose of section 10(23C)(iiiab), leading to relief for the assessee.
The dispute involved additions made despite small variations between agreement value and stamp duty value. The Tribunal ruled that differences within 10% are immune from Section 43CA, granting relief for genuine transactions.
