The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(A)’s findings while restricting addition to 12.5% of purchases. As key facts were not properly examined, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
he Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and strict proof of concealment is required. Estimated additions alone cannot justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal ruled that assessment orders in e-proceedings must be digitally signed as per CBDT instructions. A manually signed order was held illegal and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai allowed foreign tax credit of ₹90,208 despite delay in filing Form 67, holding Rule 128 directory and procedural lapse cannot defeat substantive Sec 90/DTAA claim.
The Tribunal ruled that entries found in a third-party pen drive cannot justify addition without independent corroboration. Failure to allow cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, leading to deletion.
The Discussion Paper proposes enhanced recording of CoC deliberations, rationalised CIRP costs, and safeguards against related-party influence. Legislative backing is suggested for certain reforms.
Introduced to eliminate human interface and enhance accountability, faceless assessment has improved digital transparency but raised concerns over natural justice and technical glitches.
The Tribunal held that the relevant date for Section 54 is possession of the new residential house, not the agreement date. Since possession was taken within two years of sale, exemption was allowed.
Traders are governed by both Income-tax and GST laws, creating layered compliance obligations. This article explains computation rules, judicial tests, and reporting requirements affecting trading businesses.
This article explains how Section 2(24) adopts an inclusive definition of income, covering monetary, non-monetary, and even illegal gains. It highlights key judicial doctrines that determine taxability.
