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....
Upholding the appellate order, the Tribunal ruled that section 68 applies only to credits of the relevant year. Opening balances and prior period adjustments cannot be taxed as unexplained income in a subsequent year.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of an ad-hoc expense addition where the Assessing Officer failed to point out defects in audited accounts. Proper documentation shifted the burden back to the tax authority.
The Tribunal examined whether repayment of earlier loans could be taxed as unexplained money. It held that once loans were accepted as genuine and repayment sources were explained, no addition could survive.
The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without furnishing recorded reasons despite a taxpayers request. The Tribunal held that failure to supply reasons is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates reassessment.
The issue was whether income disclosed during survey and duly reported in the return can attract penalty under Section 270A. The Tribunal held that when returned income equals assessed income, penalty provisions do not apply.
The issue was whether reassessment is valid when reasons for reopening are not placed on record. The Tribunal held that non-recording of reasons under Section 148(2) vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The reassessment was challenged for lacking approval from the correct authority under Section 151 after three years. The Tribunal held that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that while fee suppression was established during survey proceedings, the entire difference could not be taxed. Only the gross profit on suppressed receipts, excluding GST, is chargeable to tax.
The decision reiterates that when books of account, sales, and inventory are accepted, purchase disallowances cannot be made mechanically. Suspicion cannot replace proof in tax proceedings.
