Income Tax : Practical guide to tax audit under Section 44AB for trader assessees, covering groundwork, data analysis, compliance checks, and f...
Income Tax : Summary of the judgement About the assessee The assessee is a limited liability company engaged in the business of manufacture and...
Income Tax : Deduction of TDS and Taxability of the same; An Analysis of section 198 and 145 of Income tax 1961. As per basic understanding, th...
Income Tax : Self assessment - The assessee is required to make a self assessment and pay the tax on the basis of the returns furnished. Any ta...
Income Tax : ♦ Section 145A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ‘145A. Method of accounting in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything to the contra...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that assessment orders passed pursuant to earlier remand directions were barred by limitation under Section 15...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Section 69A could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer himself accepted that transactions were recorded...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that revisionary powers cannot be used to substitute the AO’s view with that of the Pr. CIT. It emphasized tha...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld reopening under Section 147 as Form 26AS reflected substantial contract receipts despite no return being filed...
Income Tax : Transfer of passive infrastructure (PI) assets under a court-approved scheme of demerger without consideration qualified as a gift...
ITAT Delhi allowed Ekalavya Gift Galleries Pvt. Ltd.’s appeals, holding that share capital and premium received from investors were properly explained and not taxable under section 68.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld PCIT’s revision under Section 263 because AO wrongly allowed a cumulative Rs.28.72 crore foreign exchange loss on ECB repayment in one year. Tribunal ruled that under ICDS-VI and AS-11, forex differences must be recognized annually, making AO’s failure to verify compliance erroneous.
The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
The ITAT voided multiple search assessments because the statutory approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that a single, proforma approval for 42 assessment orders across multiple assessees, lacking specific facts or reasoning, renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
The Tribunal confirmed a co-operative banks use of a mixed accounting system (mercantile/receipt basis) for NPA interest, prioritizing consistency and adherence to RBI/NABARD prudential norms over the AOs theoretical objection. This ruling solidifies that regulatory requirements trump mechanical accounting changes.
