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 Pune held that penalty not leviable under section 270A of the Income Tax Act since show cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb u/s. 270A(9) under which the penalty was imposed. Accordingly, penalty is quashed and appeal is allowed.
ITAT held that assessing an AOP without initiating reassessment proceedings against it is impermissible in law. The entire reassessment was declared non-est and additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority has a statutory duty to decide grounds on merits and cannot dismiss them as not adjudicated for want of details. Orders violating sections 250(6) and 251(1) were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that land cost must be allocated based on saleable/built-up area under the JDA, not total land area. It directed adoption of a higher per-sq-ft land cost while recomputing capital gains.
The Tribunal held that an enforceable agreement to sell, supported by advance consideration, constitutes transfer under Section 2(47), entitling the assessee to Section 54 relief.
The Tribunal examined whether a single satisfaction note could sustain reassessment proceedings for multiple years under section 153C. It held that a composite satisfaction is valid when based on common seized material spanning several assessment years.
The Tribunal held that once a Section 263 revision is set aside, the consequential assessment has no legal existence. All proceedings based on such assessment automatically collapse.
Holding Section 54F to be a beneficial provision, the Tribunal applied settled judicial principles to allow exemption where substantive conditions were met, directing deletion of the capital gains addition.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails when the show-cause notice is issued on an incorrect factual premise. Jurisdiction under section 147 collapses if the foundation under section 148A is flawed.
The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found from a third party cannot justify addition for cash interest without corroborative evidence. Presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be applied against a non-searched assessee.
