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 ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income, attracting the bar under Section 80A(5).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant Foreign Tax Credit, observing that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural requirement and does not extinguish the substantive claim.
The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty under Section 271D. It deleted the penalty after finding the Revenue failed to establish the alleged cash loan.
The ITAT held that BSNL employees are entitled to full exemption under Section 10(10B) for compensation received under the 2019 VRS scheme. The Tribunal rejected the view that exemption should be restricted to ₹5 lakh under Section 10(10C).
The ITAT Mumbai held that ESOP discount is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1), observing that the pendency of an SLP against a High Court judgment does not justify disallowance.
The ITAT held that no addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was warranted where shares were allotted to existing shareholders and no fresh funds were received during the relevant year. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding the assessee’s valuation supported by registered valuers.
ITAT Kolkata held that appellate authority should have awaited outcome of pending condonation application before deciding exemption claim. Matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after considering competent authority’s decision.
The dispute concerned deduction of CSR expenditure incurred before Explanation 2 to section 37(1) became applicable. The ITAT held that the contribution, made under Ministry of Shipping guidelines, was allowable for AY 2012-13. The decision emphasised that the statutory bar introduced from AY 2015-16 could not be applied retrospectively.
Expenditure of ₹4.49 crore incurred on maintenance dredging for removal of natural siltation and restoration of the existing operational depth of the jetty constituted revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1). Accordingly, the disallowance made by AO and sustained by CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment order making no new additions does not merge with the original assessment so as to permit challenge to issues accepted earlier. The original disallowance remained unaffected.
