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 AO relied on human probability, abnormal price movement and third-party material. ITAT held that without direct evidence against the assessee, LTCG cannot be branded sham.
The assessee sought to contest an EPF/ESI disallowance arising only from CPC processing. ITAT ruled that issues from 143(1) must be challenged independently, not through a 143(3) appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited from recorded demonetisation-period sales cannot be treated as unexplained when books and VAT turnover are accepted. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 69A additions.
The issue was whether filing ITR-7 instead of ITR-5 justified blanket disallowance of expenses. ITAT held that wrong ITR selection is a procedural lapse and cannot wipe out genuine expenditure.
The AO passed a rectification order while the core section 50C addition was pending fresh adjudication. ITAT ruled that such parallel adjudication leads to inconsistency and must be avoided.
The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh verification.
The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional AO invalidates the entire assessment. Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured later, making the assessment void from inception.
The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash deposits.
The tribunal ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand when the quantum addition forming its basis is deleted. The key takeaway is that penalty proceedings automatically fail without a surviving assessment addition.
ITAT held that dismissing a ground without reasons violates appellate duty. The 43B disallowance was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication.
