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 Tribunal held that leave encashment relating to government service remains fully exempt under Section 10(10AA). It ruled that later absorption into a PSU does not change the nature of the benefit.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Section 153C was the correct legal route, leading to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. Applying the principle of consistency, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal examined whether duty drawback should be taxed on accrual or actual receipt. It held that as per law, duty drawback is taxable only in the year of receipt, and additions based on accrual were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. It remanded the matter for reconsideration after the earlier year’s decision.
Tribunal rules that Section 14A disallowance must be limited to investments yielding exempt income and orders recomputation under Rule 8D. It also allows ESOP expenses as a valid business deduction under Section 37(1), treating them as an ascertained liability and not a notional or capital expense.
The Tribunal held that consultancy payments for architectural services were not FTS since no technical knowledge was made available. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The issue was whether utilisation of earlier accumulated income qualifies for fresh exemption. The Tribunal held it amounts to double deduction as exemption was already claimed earlier.
The issue was whether purchases could be treated as bogus based on investigation reports. ITAT held that when documentary evidence and asset existence are proven, additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when supported by invoices, bank payments, and GST records. It ruled that absence of adverse evidence makes such additions unsustainable.
