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 the validity of a penalty notice combining concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT ruled that vague notices violate natural justice and quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
ITAT Jaipur held that claim on account of provision of future expense is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per matching principle of accountancy. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the prescribed time limit was valid. The Tribunal held that notices for the relevant year issued after the cut-off date were barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative housing society from deposits with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction, as the bank continues to be a co-operative society.
The court set aside a rectification order passed without a DIN and beyond the statutory time limit. The ruling underscores that non-compliance with CBDT DIN rules renders such orders invalid.
