ITAT Delhi restored the appeal to CIT(A) after the assessee challenged notice issuance beyond limitation and under wrong section. Key takeaway: adherence to correct procedure is crucial in income tax assessments.
Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were challenged as cash payments were made on holidays and for labor. Tribunal directs reassessment considering business exigency and genuine transactions.
Despite CIT(A) noting missing ITRs, Tribunal allowed TDS credit on the Rs. 1 crore part payment. Decision reinforces that TDS on income already taxed must be recognized and credited.
The Tribunal ruled that when a 143(3) assessment merely adopts 143(1) figures without examining adjustments, taxpayers can still appeal the 143(1) intimation. Key takeaway: merger does not automatically block appeals.
ITAT modified CIT(A)’s 20% addition on alleged bogus purchases to 15%, considering actual sales and material usage. The ruling ensures only profit embedded in disputed purchases is taxed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a ₹10 lakh cash addition treated as unexplained income under section 69 was fully explained through verified land compensation withdrawals. The source, identity, and availability of funds were documented by Revenue authorities, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to TDS credit if the tax was deducted at source, even if the employer failed to deposit it or issue Form 16. Tax authorities cannot penalize the employee for the employer’s lapses.
Tribunal deleted 10% ad-hoc disallowances on travelling and telephone expenses as the assessee produced complete vouchers and audited books. Authorities cannot impose blanket disallowances without specific inquiry.
The tribunal confirmed that in search assessments under section 153A, no separate notice under section 143(2) is required. The assessee’s procedural objection was dismissed, aligning with Delhi High Court precedent.
