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 for an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material linked to the loan was found, the Section 68 addition was deleted.
The addition was based on suspicion arising from third-party misconduct. The Tribunal reiterated that income tax additions cannot rest on presumptions alone.
The assessment relied on investigation reports without examining the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal held that cross-verification is essential before sustaining additions under section 68.
The assessee claimed that cash deposits belonged to company debtors and past savings, which were not examined earlier. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-verification in the interest of justice.
The case concerned denial of deduction citing dealings with associate members. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court precedent and directed the AO to verify member status and society bye-laws before deciding eligibility.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice is compulsory once a return is filed under Section 148. Absence of such notice vitiates jurisdiction and nullifies the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period were invalid. Following the Supreme Courts ruling on reassessment timelines, the entire reopening and resulting additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the mandatory faceless regime under Sections 144B and 151A. Non-compliance with the prescribed faceless procedure renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
The issue was whether settled losses could be ignored in a search assessment without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that the AO must start from the last assessed income and allow already determined losses.
