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...
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated by NFAC before Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 were without jurisdiction. Since Section 151A became effective only upon notification, the entire reassessment and related penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that providing PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and financial records satisfies statutory requirements. With no defects found by the AO, the addition was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening of assessment is void where the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to communication of sanction under Section 151. Such procedural lapse renders the entire reassessment null and void.
TAT Kolkata ruled that reopening based on unverified foreign information amounted to borrowed satisfaction. Since the sanctioning authority granted approval mechanically, the reassessment was declared void.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271D if reasonable cause is established under Section 273B.
ITAT Indore held that in absence of evidence, expense on fuel cost occurred on deployment of JCB’s on rent needs to be ascertained by way of proper and detailed empirical analysis. Accordingly, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal because it did not contest the CIT(A)s ruling that the reassessment notice was legally invalid. Without challenging the jurisdictional defect, the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed and books of account remain intact, purchase additions require stronger evidence. In the absence of contrary material, the ₹35.48 lakh disallowance was deleted.
Although stamp law generally places registration costs on buyers, the Tribunal held that parties may contract otherwise. Since the sale deed clearly assigned the burden to the seller, the ₹5.47 lakh disallowance was deleted.
