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...
Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
The tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that faceless assessment proceedings were initiated before the scheme was formally notified, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer should refer the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding corpus donations to annual receipts to deny exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Recognizing such donations as capital receipts, the Tribunal restored the tax exemption.
The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 9A is not required when a charitable trust sets off earlier years’ excess application against current year income. The set-off is allowable as application of income under Section 11.
ITAT Raipur held that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an income tax appeal solely for non-prosecution.
The tribunal examined whether an appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance without considering the assessee’s explanation. It set aside the order and remanded the matter, directing the authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting a proper hearing.
The tribunal examined whether an appeal could be dismissed as time-barred without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. It held that denial of hearing violated principles of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal examined whether the tax authority correctly calculated allowable promotional expenses. It held that the disallowance based on an incorrect assumption about the number of gifts issued was unsustainable.
