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 held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid where the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. A notice issued for a ₹5 lakh donation was declared void ab initio.
Taxing a debenture waiver as revenue income was challenged. The Tribunal rejected the approach, holding the waiver arose from capital financing and not trading operations. The ruling confirms that capital restructuring gains are not taxable by default.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are time-barred. Such reopening is invalid despite reliance on TOLA, and must be quashed.
Holding that actions prescribed by statute must be performed only in the specified manner, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. The case reinforces the importance of lawful service of notices before penal action.
The Tribunal found that estimating agricultural income solely on standard yield figures ignores real-world farming variables. The assessment was partly modified by limiting the addition to ₹50,000.
The Tribunal clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
The issue was whether income of a predecessor company for years before amalgamation can be reassessed in the hands of the successor. ITAT held that such clubbing is impermissible and the reassessment itself is void.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide mistake in claiming deduction under an incorrect section should not bar relief. The matter was remanded to verify eligibility under section 35(1)(ii).
Where capital subsidy was not received in the relevant year and no addition followed, reopening lacked basis. Mechanical reliance on audit objections was held unlawful.
The Tribunal upheld additions in search assessments where seized material and settled precedent supported the Revenue’s case. The ruling clarifies that group-level incriminating evidence can justify section 153A additions.
