Income Tax : The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairne...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified e...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remai...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening....
The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy of section 271B was held to be impermissible double penalisation.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed and only the embedded profit can be taxed, upholding a 20% addition.
The Tribunal clarified that approval under section 153D is an administrative safeguard and need not contain elaborate reasoning. Allegations of mechanical approval fail without concrete evidence of non-application of mind.
The ITAT ruled that rectification proceedings cannot substitute for an appellate remedy against an addition under section 69A. Absence of a mistake apparent from the record justified dismissal.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where notices are issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO. Non-compliance with the faceless scheme renders the entire process void.
The Tribunal held that additions in a search assessment cannot survive without incriminating material. Mere repetition of an annulled earlier assessment was found legally unsustainable.
The decision reiterates that the Revenue must prove that borrowed funds were actually used for non-business purposes. In absence of such proof, interest paid to banks remains allowable.
The Tribunal noted that no construction investment occurred during the year under appeal. Accordingly, no addition for unexplained investment could be sustained in that assessment year.
The ruling clarifies that TDS must be deducted at the time of credit, even if amounts are booked as provisions. Merely claiming that no payment was made does not excuse non-deduction.
The Tribunal held that where purchases are not disputed and books are not rejected, the entire sale consideration cannot be added as unexplained income. Since the assessee had already offered profits to tax, the addition was deleted.
