ITAT Delhi held that a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the addition is based on estimation of gross profit. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The Authority ruled that the product did not qualify as a separate chemically defined compound due to variable composition and fluctuating molecular characteristics, making Chapter 29 inapplicable.
The Authority ruled that the addition of calcium phosphate and the product’s intended use in food and beverage enrichment made it a protein-based preparation under Heading 2106 rather than an isolated soy protein under Heading 3504.
The Delhi ITAT upheld the addition of deemed house property income after finding that the assessee failed to support his claims with evidence. The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the principle relating to assessments of non-existent entities without examining the factual circumstances of the firm’s conversion into a proprietorship. The matter was remanded for further inquiry.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding no evidence that cash rent payments exceeded ₹10,000 on any single day. The ruling underscores that Section 40A(3) cannot be invoked without establishing an actual breach of the prescribed limit.
Assessing Officer acknowledged an inadvertent error in adding ₹46 lakh to the taxpayer’s income. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh assessment and directed consideration of all evidence, including the builder’s certificate.
The appellant claimed to be only a commission agent, but witness statements and records showed involvement in procurement, logistics, documentation, and receipt of export proceeds. The Tribunal held that these facts established participation in the export scheme and justified penalty.
ITAT sustained the adoption of fair market value under Section 50C after finding that seized cash represented on-money from property transactions. The Tribunal upheld the valuation determined through the DVO process.
CESTAT Chennai held that concessional CVD on imported cement cannot be denied merely because 50 kg bags carried printed RSP. The Tribunal ruled that the department must establish actual retail sale or misuse of the exemption.
