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...
ITAT Jodhpur quashes a rectification order, ruling a CIT(A) cannot change a decision under the guise of rectifying a mistake apparent from the record.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of CIT(A) order was ex-parte without hearing the assessee and there is sufficient cause shown by assessee in not attending hearings as per opportunities granted by CIT(A). Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A).
Addition under section 68 for Long-term capital gains (LTCG) from sale of shares allotted pursuant to a demerger scheme as bogus and alleged that price manipulation based on a report from the Investigation Wing of the Income tax Department was not justified as the assessee proved genuineness by comprehensive documentary evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere titular ownership of bank account is not conclusive. Thus, addition u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained without proper inquiry into identity of actual beneficiary of cash deposits.
ITAT Bangalore deletes ₹25.8L penalty under Section 271D as AO failed to record satisfaction in assessment order. Procedural lapse proved fatal.
Mumbai ITAT dismisses Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Limited’s appeal for AY 2023-24 as withdrawn, noting it was a duplicate filing after an earlier appeal was already disposed of.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled on Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel vs ITO, deleting an addition under Section 69A, stating investment source investigation belongs to the actual investor.
ITAT Ahmedabad clarifies that common area maintenance charges recovered from a sub-tenant, when reimbursed against actual expenses, are not rental income.
The Kolkata ITAT quashes a reassessment notice issued under Section 148, citing it was time-barred. The decision clarifies the application of TOLA and the new reassessment regime.
