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 deleted the addition made under Section 153C as no incriminating material directly linked the buyer to alleged cash payments. Reliance solely on third-party pen drive data and statements was held insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that actual use of the property during the year is not a pre-condition for including it in the block of assets. Depreciation eligibility differs from eligibility for block inclusion under Section 50.
The Tribunal emphasized that without physical goods, exports and stock reconciliation would not be possible. Since quantitative records and gross profit remained consistent, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
The ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society on bank deposits qualifies as business income. Such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The ITAT ruled that dismissing an appeal solely for non-compliance is contrary to law. The appellate authority is obligated to frame issues and pass a reasoned order on each ground raised.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years is impermissible where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Since the notice violated Section 151, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal clarified that passing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is not a mere procedural defect. It held that participation in proceedings does not validate a void assessment.
ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely because of an incorrect disclosure in the return. Documentary proof of running a school was decisive.
