Income Tax : ITAT held that where sales are not disputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only 15% profit element was taxed, reinforcing...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. ...
Income Tax : The issue involved levy of late fees on TDS returns processed before statutory amendment. The Tribunal held that absence of enabli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that valuation without giving the assessee an opportunity to object violates natural justice. It remanded the ma...
Income Tax : The Tribunal condoned delay due to reasonable cause and addressed valuation mismatch. It remanded the issue for DVO-based reassess...
Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating such addition in a Section 263 order was held invalid.
The Tribunal held that eligibility for Section 80P depends on actual activities, not the society’s name. Deduction was allowed as the society provided credit facilities to members.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80P on bank interest cannot be re-examined once earlier order attained finality. The issue was restricted to allowing related expenses under Section 57.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal held that deduction is allowable as there is no specific prohibition except for certain funds.
The Tribunal held that delayed verification of an e-filed return is only a procedural lapse. Deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied when the return was filed within the due date.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest provision only increases business income, which remains eligible for Section 80P deduction. Hence, the addition was treated as tax-neutral and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding that an identical appeal had already been filed and heard. The case was treated as duplicate and not examined on merits.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
