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 once an assessee adopts a prescribed valuation method under Rule 11UA, the AO cannot change or substitute it. The ruling reinforces taxpayer autonomy in selecting valuation approaches.
The Tribunal ruled that bank deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income when linked to regular business activity. It upheld that consistent past records supported the assessee’s claim of business receipts.
The issue was incorrect computation of interest without reducing foreign tax relief. ITAT held that relief under sections 90/90A must be deducted before calculating interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses, relying on earlier decisions in the same case. It ruled that no change in facts justified a different view.
The issue was whether income from hybrid seed production on leased land qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that ownership is not necessary if the assessee exercises control, bears risk, and performs agricultural operations.
The issue was validity of reopening based on approval lacking proper application of mind. The Tribunal held such mechanical approval invalid, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incriminating evidence, such addition is unsustainable, emphasizing the need for nexus.
Expenses incurred for a proposed business project later abandoned were allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that such costs remain deductible if incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
