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 ruled that third-party statements cannot be relied upon unless furnished and tested through cross-examination. Natural justice overrides suspicion in section 68 proceedings.
The dispute concerned taxation of land sale as capital gains despite claims that it was agricultural land beyond municipal limits. The Tribunal held that rejecting the claim without examining evidence was improper and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that refusal to admit evidence due to factory sealing and death of the assessee was unjustified and ordered fresh assessment after proper verification.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the impugned scrip i.e. Kyra Landscapes Ltd. is not in the list of shares in the investigation report in case of project bogus LTCG/STCL. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The Tribunal held that delays caused by internal approvals from senior officials cannot justify late filing. Lack of due diligence by officials led to outright dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions made without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice violate CBDT instructions and natural justice. Key takeaway: Procedural compliance is essential for valid assessments.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received for grant of non-exclusive broadcasting rights of feature films cannot be termed as “royalty” within the parameters of “royalty” as defined in Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order set aside.
The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
