The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income should be taxed as business income, not as unexplained investment under special provisions.
The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to specify the exact limb of misreporting renders the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that prior to the 2023 amendment, returns filed within the broader time under Section 139 were eligible for exemption. It ruled that updated returns could not be denied benefits retrospectively.
The tribunal held that selling only open land, even if earlier part of a residential property, does not qualify as transfer of a residential house. Since no building was sold, exemption under Section 54 was rightly denied.
The case examined validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond statutory limits. The ITAT held the notice invalid as it exceeded the permissible time period. It reinforces strict compliance with limitation provisions.
The case dealt with rejection of books due to unverifiable expenses and lack of supporting records. The ITAT upheld rejection but found 8% profit estimation excessive. It reduced the rate to 5%, emphasizing fairness in estimation.
The Tribunal held that a company engaged in high-end KPO and business solutions could not be compared with a routine captive BPO service provider. It also ruled that a comparable cannot be rejected solely for following a different financial year if reliable quarterly data is available.
The case addressed whether entries in third-party seized documents can justify additions. The ITAT ruled they cannot without independent corroboration. It reinforces that suspicion alone cannot sustain tax additions.
The issue involved additions based on alleged bogus purchases without VAT payment. The Tribunal remanded the matter pending the High Court’s decision on similar cases.
The Tribunal upheld TDS liability where tax was deducted only on part of the property value. It ruled that TDS must be applied on the entire consideration for immovable property transactions.
