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 ruling clarifies that CSR-related disallowance under Section 37(1) applies only from AY 2015-16 onwards. For earlier years, expenses with a business nexus remain deductible.
The issue was whether CBDT jewellery instructions could shield bullion found during a search from taxation. The Tribunal held that the instruction applies only to jewellery, not bullion, and upheld the Section 69A addition.
The issue was whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by audited books, sales records, and accepted VAT returns, no addition can survive.
The issue was whether a short delay in registering the new house defeats Section 54 relief. The Tribunal held that substantial compliance within the prescribed period is sufficient and allowed the exemption in full.
The ruling addressed conflicts between documentary proof of loans and third-party allegations of accommodation entries. The Tribunal held that unsupported allegations cannot override evidence establishing genuine loan transactions.
The case addressed addition of a large gift treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter after admitting additional evidence showing the donor’s identity, relationship, and financial capacity.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued with approval of the Member of CBDT instead of Pr. CCIT is void and invalid. Accordingly, order passed under section 147 is without legal standing and hence quashed.
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.
