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 Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT Chennai held that merely opting for Vivad-Se-Vishwas does not end an appeal unless settlement is completed; dismissal by assumption was invalid and appeal was restored for merits adjudication.
The issue was whether reopening based only on portal information is valid. The Tribunal held that absence of independent inquiry and tangible material vitiates reassessment and nullifies the addition.
The tribunal held that any adjustment while processing a return under Section 143(1) requires prior intimation to the assessee. Disallowance made without issuing such notice is invalid in law.
The tribunal held that large cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be taxed as unexplained income when the assessee proves he acted only as a commission agent. Only commission income, and not gross deposits, is taxable in such cases.
The issue was dismissal of appeals for non-payment of admitted tax without hearing on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeals, holding that the assessee deserved an opportunity to explain advance tax liability.
The ITAT ruled that once the assessee establishes the source of investment, addition for unexplained investment cannot survive. Direct payment by a financier through demand draft explained the transaction.
The case examined taxation of a charitable entity when registration under Section 12A was unsettled. While scrutiny selection was upheld, the assessment was remanded to await the outcome of registration proceedings.
Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that estimating profits at 1% was excessive and moderated it to 0.50%.
The Tribunal ruled that interest earned on Government grants parked under official directions cannot be divorced from the original grant. Denial of exemption was found to defeat the purpose of section 10(23C)(iiiab), leading to relief for the assessee.
