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 ruled that rectification proceedings cannot substitute for an appellate remedy against an addition under section 69A. Absence of a mistake apparent from the record justified dismissal.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where notices are issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO. Non-compliance with the faceless scheme renders the entire process void.
The Tribunal held that additions in a search assessment cannot survive without incriminating material. Mere repetition of an annulled earlier assessment was found legally unsustainable.
The decision reiterates that the Revenue must prove that borrowed funds were actually used for non-business purposes. In absence of such proof, interest paid to banks remains allowable.
The Tribunal noted that no construction investment occurred during the year under appeal. Accordingly, no addition for unexplained investment could be sustained in that assessment year.
The ruling clarifies that TDS must be deducted at the time of credit, even if amounts are booked as provisions. Merely claiming that no payment was made does not excuse non-deduction.
The Tribunal held that where purchases are not disputed and books are not rejected, the entire sale consideration cannot be added as unexplained income. Since the assessee had already offered profits to tax, the addition was deleted.
Upholding the appellate order, the Tribunal ruled that section 68 applies only to credits of the relevant year. Opening balances and prior period adjustments cannot be taxed as unexplained income in a subsequent year.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of an ad-hoc expense addition where the Assessing Officer failed to point out defects in audited accounts. Proper documentation shifted the burden back to the tax authority.
