ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that relief under the first proviso to Section 201(1) is available if Form 26A certifying the deductee’s tax payment is furnished. As the buyer obtained the certificate post-appeal, the case was remanded for verification.
ITAT quashed a reassessment, ruling that S 148 notice was invalid because it was issued before AO formally received mandatory sanction from PCIT under S 151. Relying on Supreme Court, Tribunal held that internal approval is insufficient; communication of sanction to AO is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Tribunal observed that AO accepted returned income without any independent examination or inquiry. As major issues like estimation of profit in liquor trade and tax audit requirements were ignored, assessment was held erroneous. Pr. CIT’s revision under Section 263 was sustained.
ITAT set aside ex-parte additions for unsecured loans and partner’s capital, ruling that taxpayer had reasonable cause for late submission of evidence due to departure of their accountant and Authorized Representative (AR). Tribunal directed CIT(A) to admit evidence under Rule 46A and decide case on its merits.
Tribunal reversed disallowance of Section 80P deduction, affirming that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with a co-operative bank is eligible for tax benefit.
ITAT ruled that a resident individual, opting for new tax regime with income below ₹7 lakhs, is eligible for full S 87A rebate, even if their income includes STCG under S 111A3 Court held that no statutory bar existed for Assessment Year 2024-25, invalidating system-driven denial by CPC.
Tribunal ruled that high-rate tax under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to assessment year 2017-18 cash deposit, as section applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Decision directs AO to compute consequential tax liability under normal provisions.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹31.35 lakh addition for alleged inflated purchases, ruling that an assessment cannot rest solely on third-party search data. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to conduct any independent enquiry or provide corroborating evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions.
ITAT Delhi remanded the addition of 12.5% profit on alleged bogus sales because the CIT(A) sustained the amount (₹20.16 lakh) without providing adequate reasoning or opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh, speaking order after considering all submissions.
