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 issue was erroneous recomputation of LTCG causing double taxation. The Tribunal held that credit for LTCG already declared must be given and indexation cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Rejecting contradictory treatment, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the lender’s scrutiny while taxing the borrower under section 68. The addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed that post-2021 reassessment notices must strictly comply with amended section 151. Non-compliance with the specified approving authority deprives the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding a completed scrutiny assessment. The decision clarifies that remand powers apply only to Section 144 assessments, not regular ones.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside an addition made only on documents seized from a builder during search proceedings. The ruling underscores that independent evidence against the assessee is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from genuine sales already recorded in books cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. The key takeaway is that such additions amount to impermissible double taxation.
It was ruled that substituting sale consideration with stamp duty value during CPC processing is impermissible. Such action deprives taxpayers of the statutory right to seek DVO valuation.
The Tribunal ruled that dismissing appeals in limine without examining reasons for delay was improper. It restored the matters for fresh consideration, stressing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
