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 upheld deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) where interest income was earned from deposits with a co-operative bank. It held that a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for this purpose.
ITAT Indore held that delay of 560 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) rightly not condoned as assessee has failed to give satisfactory and bonafide explanation. Accordingly, delay not condoned as no sufficient cause shown.
The issue was whether an Assessing Officer can travel beyond limited scrutiny without mandatory approval. The Tribunal held that such action violates binding CBDT Instructions and renders the assessment void from inception
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
The ITAT held that where investments are fully backed by substantial own funds and a rational suo-motu disallowance is made, Rule 8D cannot be mechanically invoked. The Revenue’s attempt to make an additional disallowance was rejected.
The Tribunal held that a surrender during survey cannot justify additions without supporting material. Statements under Section 133A lack evidentiary value unless backed by records. Additions based solely on surrender were deleted.
The ITAT held that even a small part payment through banking channels before or on the agreement date is sufficient to invoke the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Substantial payment or possession is not a statutory requirement.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed after the expiry of Section 153 is invalid, even if it follows DRP directions. The is that limitation under Section 153 remains mandatory and cannot be bypassed through the DRP route.
The ITAT held that unsecured loans totaling ₹1.05 crore could not be added under Section 68 where the AO failed to make any inquiry or issue summons, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot justify additions.
The reassessment was framed ex-parte after notices were served on a wrong email address. ITAT Delhi ruled that effective hearing is a sine qua non under the law, and proceedings based on faulty service cannot stand. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
