The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CPC cannot suo motu reclassify an apartment owners association as a co-operative society while processing returns under Section 143(1). The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 97,690 demand after finding the adjustment beyond the scope of prima facie processing.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to show independent application of mind or establish a nexus between investigation material and escaped income.
ITAT ruled that although LTC exemption involving foreign travel stood disallowed by SC, such judgment could not retrospectively impose TDS default liability for periods covered by judicial interim protection.
Tribunal ruled that compliance with judicial orders restraining deduction of tax at source cannot attract liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that a demolished and uninhabitable structure could not be treated as a residential house for Section 54F purposes. The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s eligibility for capital gains exemption.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form 10-IE filed along with the return could not be ignored merely because it was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to recompute tax under the new tax regime.
The Tribunal upheld reopening under Section 147 as Form 26AS reflected substantial contract receipts despite no return being filed. It ruled that such information constitutes valid grounds for belief of income escaping assessment.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS obligation arises, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The tribunal held that cash deposits backed by sales records cannot be treated as unexplained income. It upheld deletion of addition where transactions were properly documented.
