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 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.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of acquisition could be fixed on assumptions. It held that government-notified MVR rates must be considered and ad-hoc estimates cannot replace statutory valuation methods.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
The tribunal refused to admit a fresh legal challenge to reassessment raised for the first time. However, it remanded the revenue-difference addition for fresh adjudication due to natural justice concerns.
