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 ...
Tribunal clarified that the Section 251 amendment uses the term ‘may set aside,’ meaning it is discretionary. Since the issue was already resolved in remand, addition was deleted.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices must be issued through NFAC under the 2022 Faceless Scheme. A JAO-issued notice violates the mandatory procedure and stands invalid.
Tribunal quashed CIT(A)’s cryptic order that upheld addition based solely on IDS declaration. The case is remanded to ensure a fair hearing, full analysis of the Joint Development Agreement, and accurate determination of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order on land ownership and capital-asset status. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication and proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
ITAT held that cash sales forming part of disclosed turnover cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credits. The ruling confirms that Section 68 does not apply when books are intact and evidence supports the sales.
ITAT held that the assessee operated as a commission agent, not a trader, making Section 44AD inapplicable. A reasonable 5% estimation on cash deposits was upheld.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a charitable trust’s exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied due to a technical mismatch in reporting new 12AB registration in the ITR. The substantive validity of the original 12A registration ensures continuity of exemption.
