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 held that when the same property valuation has been accepted in co-owners’ cases, a contrary view cannot be taken for another co-owner. Consistency in tax treatment is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee proves identity, genuineness, and source through documents and bank records, the burden shifts to the Revenue. Without rebuttal of evidence, addition under Section 68 cannot survive.
The Tribunal found that key evidences furnished by the assessee were not adequately considered by lower authorities. The issue was restored to ensure fair examination and compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot stand where income is enhanced purely by estimation. Additions made by applying a higher profit rate, without incriminating material, fall outside under-reporting.
ITAT ruled that principal amounts in accommodation share entries do not constitute income of a conduit entity. Taxability is restricted to the commission earned for facilitating such transactions.
Once the cash credit addition failed, the special tax under Section 115BBE could not survive. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, reaffirming that consequential provisions fall with the primary addition.
The issue was whether retaining both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice renders the penalty void. The Tribunal ruled that failure to strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the proceedings. Penalties must be founded on precise allegations.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
The case questioned whether a cooperative banks audited expenses could be disallowed on a percentage basis for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal ruled against arbitrary disallowance without defects in accounts.
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
