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...
The issue was whether the entire bank deposits could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69. The tribunal held that deposits linked to business activity cannot be fully taxed and directed estimation of profit at 8%.
The Tribunal held that when the difference between purchase price and DVO valuation falls within the 10% tolerance band, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii). The addition based on stamp duty value was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that entire bank deposits cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Instead, where deposits relate to commission-based transactions, only a reasonable profit percentage (2% of deposits) should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and financial details establishing the identity and source of the investor. Since the AO relied mainly on tracing further layers of transactions without adverse evidence against the assessee, the addition under section 68 was deleted.
ITAT held that delay in filing Form 9A cannot automatically result in denial of exemption under Section 11. The issue was sent back for reconsideration after examining the condonation application before the Commissioner.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where approval under Section 151 was granted mechanically. The sanction was based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return.
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
The tribunal considered whether inconsistent explanations alone justify treating cash deposits as unexplained income. It held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and additions require proper investigation.
