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 ITAT held that gross bank credits cannot be treated as unexplained income where evidence shows the assessee merely facilitated transactions for a third party. Only a reasonable commission was directed to be taxed.
Addressing alleged cash discrepancies and debtor recoveries, the Tribunal held that such amounts form part of presumptive business receipts. Without books or adverse evidence, additions were unjustified.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could be added again after being accepted in prior proceedings. The Tribunal ruled that absence of new material bars reassessment on identical facts.
The dispute concerned treatment of frequent cash deposits collected from customers for recharge services. The Tribunal affirmed that income should be estimated at 8% where records and compliance were lacking.
The Tribunal held that cash routed through a bank account for money transfer activity cannot be taxed in full when only commission is earned. Once commission income is offered to tax, no further addition is justified.
Extensive remand proceedings confirmed the genuineness of share transactions and valuation. The Tribunal ruled that once evidence is verified and no defect is found, LTCL cannot be disallowed.
The Tribunal examined whether entire purchases from untraceable suppliers could be added to income. It held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy of section 271B was held to be impermissible double penalisation.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed and only the embedded profit can be taxed, upholding a 20% addition.
The Tribunal clarified that approval under section 153D is an administrative safeguard and need not contain elaborate reasoning. Allegations of mechanical approval fail without concrete evidence of non-application of mind.
