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 admitted additional evidence where TDS credit was denied because it appeared in a different assessment year’s Form 26AS. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify documents and allow credit as per law.
The Tribunal held that advance tax cannot be treated as delayed when the amount is debited from the taxpayer’s bank account on the due date. Interest under Section 234C was quashed as the delay in challan generation was beyond the assessee’s control.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the addition was made solely on Investigation Wing inputs without proper verification or disclosure of details to the taxpayer.
Revenue argued that control and fixed hours created employment. The Tribunal ruled that such controls ensure discipline and contract enforcement, not employment. Result: TDS under Section 194J sustained.
The Revenue treated cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A despite matching withdrawals and opening cash balance. The Tribunal ruled that redeposit of available cash cannot be taxed as unexplained income.
The ITAT ruled that ad-hoc estimation of sundry creditors as ceased liabilities is not permissible when purchases and trading results are accepted. Section 41(1) can be invoked only on proven remission or cessation, not assumptions.
The Tribunal held that reopening AY 2012–13 after a post-2021 search was barred by limitation. Applying Supreme Court guidance, it ruled that older limitation periods protect concluded assessments from retrospective reopening.
Since the reassessment notice was barred by limitation, the tribunal did not examine capital gains issues on merits. The ruling confirms that jurisdictional defects override substantive tax disputes.
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
