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 ...
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed as time-barred should be revived when delay was caused by a tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the cases for merits-based adjudication.
The appeals were dismissed solely due to delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that substantive justice requires condonation, though costs may be imposed for repeated defaults.
The issue was whether partners’ capital contributions could be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the firm’s hands. The ITAT ruled that once partners are identified and capital intro-duction is proved, section 68 cannot be applied to the firm.
The Tribunal examined whether non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges justified treating the payer as an assessee-in-default. It held that the Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has already paid tax, as mandated by the proviso to section 201(1).
The Tribunal ruled that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance and must decide it on merits, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal ruled that a creditor’s write-off alone cannot trigger section 41(1) taxation. The assessee’s liability persisted in its books, and the ₹10.23 crore addition was deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
