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 held that application software licences with limited duration and no ownership rights are revenue expenditure. It deleted the disallowance and ruled that remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that mere acceptance of demonetized currency during the demonetization period cannot justify addition under Section 68 when identity, genuineness, and source are established. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Section 54F Deduction Remanded as Tenants’ Affidavits Suggest Commercial Use of Properties, No Addition Without Corroborative Evidence: ITAT Deletes ₹50 Lakh On-Money Addition in Property Deal and Presumption Under Section 132(4A) Cannot Be Applied Against Assessee When Documents Seized from Third Party
The Tribunal deleted the ₹60 lakh addition under Section 68 after noting that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels and the lenders identity was established.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
The Tribunal found that denial of foreign tax credit during return processing was improper where Form 67 and the return were filed together. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow credit.
Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan addition after finding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness established through PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and TDS records.
