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...
Chennai ITAT rules Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a company tax and not covered by DTAA, rejecting the refund claim. Separately, it capped the TDS disallowance at 30% under Section 40(a)(ia).
The ITAT Chennai, in the case of T. Radhakrishnan Vs ITO, ruled a ₹8 lakh cash deposit was from the sale of casuarina trees, not unexplained income, and deleted the tax addition.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the allotment of a flat to the assessee during AY 2007-08 does not attract tax under Section 56(2)(v), as the provision at that time applied only to money received, not immovable property.
ITAT Bangalore held that non-compliance with tax notices due to notices being sent to wrong email IDs and the demise of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant constitutes sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.50,000 penalty under s.272A(1)(d), ruling COVID-19 hospitalization was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to multiple notices issued in quick succession.
CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed appeal alleging no submissions; ITAT noted documents were filed and directed fresh consideration, upholding principles of natural justice.
Technicalities Cannot Defeat Substantial Justice: ITAT Allows Delayed Appeal of Rural Senior Citizen- Email Notices Ignored by 74-Year-Old HUF Kartha – ITAT Bangalore Grants Relief & Restores Matter to NFAC
The ITAT Nagpur condoned a 489-day delay and, on merits, deleted an addition of ₹20,32,500 made under Section 69, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide substantive evidence or corroboration that the investment was made in the relevant assessment year, A.Y.
The court found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the declared profit rates were comparable to previous years, distinguishing the case from bogus purchases precedents.
ITAT Mumbai held the disallowance on basis that the ESOP expenses is contingent in nature cannot be sustained. However, amount claimed as expenditure, the basis of allocation of ESOP cost by GSGI etc., needs to be factually examined. Hence, matter remanded.
