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...
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]
The Tribunal clarified that possession is not a mandatory condition for claiming Section 54 exemption. It held that investment within the prescribed timeline satisfies the legal requirement.
ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court rulings to hold that co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies for deduction purposes. It allowed deduction on interest income under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that commission income cannot be computed on internal or circular banking transactions. It reduced the commission rate from 1.75% to 0.47% and directed recomputation after verification. The ruling emphasizes accurate determination of real in-come.
The ITAT held that a 29-day delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and cannot be the sole basis for denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12. It ruled that substantial compliance and availability of the audit report before processing must be considered. The AO was directed to reassess the exemption claim accordingly.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal without clearly pointing out deficiencies and allowing correction violates natural justice. It restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that entire purchases cannot be disallowed when corresponding sales are accepted. It upheld restriction of addition to profit element, preventing unrealistic income computation.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing Form 10-IC should not deny concessional tax benefits. It emphasized that substantive compliance prevails over procedural defects.
The Tribunal held that no double deduction was claimed as the provision was already added back in computation. The addition was deleted for being based on incorrect facts.
