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 Tribunal restored the Assessing Officers action after finding clear admission of issuing accommodation bills. Commission at 1% was rightly taxed on both bogus purchases and bogus sales.
Authorities found the land had been sold decades earlier and the MOU acknowledged no possession or rights. The Tribunal affirmed taxation under section 56. The ruling clarifies that an MOU cannot convert non-rights into capital receipts.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of rental receipts as income from house property because the companys principal object was not property letting. It ruled that business income treatment cannot be claimed merely based on incidental objects in the memorandum.
The AO treated loans as unexplained due to incomplete confirmations. The Tribunal confirmed deletion after remand proceedings verified lenders’ identity, capacity, and transaction genuineness.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated for an amount implicitly accepted in original assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reopening amounted to change of opinion and was legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was penalized without substantive evidence or effective cross-examination. Holding this contrary to principles of natural justice, the penalty was deleted. The case highlights procedural fairness in penalty matters.
The issue involved taxing a marginal valuation difference on property purchase. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the variation was below the statutory tolerance threshold. The decision confirms that minor deviations alone cannot be treated as taxable income.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 14A could be made when no expenditure relating to exempt income was claimed. The Tribunal held that unclaimed expenses cannot be disallowed. The ruling reinforces that section 14A applies only to deductions actually claimed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited during demonetisation was supported by evidence of cash sales and debtor collections. Once the source was substantiated, addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
Despite deficiencies in documentation, agricultural activity and landholding were undisputed. The Tribunal granted partial relief while sustaining a modest addition. The decision highlights a balanced approach where activity is proven but evidence is imperfect.
