The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal without clearly pointing out deficiencies and allowing correction violates natural justice. It restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that entire purchases cannot be disallowed when corresponding sales are accepted. It upheld restriction of addition to profit element, preventing unrealistic income computation.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made merely on survey statements without rejecting books of account or providing proper opportunity. It deleted the addition for alleged underreported profit, emphasizing adherence to due process.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing Form 10-IC should not deny concessional tax benefits. It emphasized that substantive compliance prevails over procedural defects.
The Tribunal condoned delay after finding reasonable cause and examined the merits of the case. It held that no capital gains arise where purchase and sale consideration are identical.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify evidence relating to alleged accommodation entries. The matter was remanded for fresh examination and a reasoned decision.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10-IC does not invalidate the option exercised under Section 115BAA if declared in the return. It ruled that the requirement is procedural, not mandatory. The decision ensures substantive tax benefits are not denied due to technical lapses
Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that adjustments under Section 143(1) cannot be made without issuing prior intimation to the taxpayer. As CPC failed to provide such notice or reasons, the adjustment and resulting demand were set aside.
