The Tribunal held that deducting TDS only on part of the purchase price of immovable property was contrary to Section 194IA. TDS was required to be deducted on the full consideration of ₹4.81 crore.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that general expenses could not be disallowed merely on suspicion or comparative increase without identifying defects in books or non-business expenditure. The Tribunal observed that the AO made the addition without proper examination of records.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order after observing inconsistencies between the findings of the CIT(A) and the assessment order. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication with a reasoned speaking order and proper opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty proceedings initiated after unreasonable delay violated the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal ruled that delayed penalty orders cannot survive once limitation expires.
ITAT Kolkata held that entire bogus purchases must be added under Section 69C where the supplier was proved to be a paper entity and no evidence of actual delivery of goods existed. The ruling reiterates that bank payments and invoices alone cannot establish genuineness.
ITAT Kolkata held that presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was wrongly invoked where the assessee’s turnover exceeded ₹2 crore. The Tribunal clarified that statutory turnover limits must be strictly satisfied before applying presumptive profit provisions.
DCIT Vs Shikha Indrakumar Agrawal (ITAT Nagpur) The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions made under Sections 68 and 69C in respect of long-term capital gains claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) on sale of listed shares. The assessee had purchased 24,000 shares of […]
The Tribunal held that unrecovered advances made in the ordinary course of business can be allowed as business loss, even if they do not qualify as bad debts under section 36.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished agricultural sale bills, revenue records, and bank details supporting the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, only a partial addition was sustained.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
