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 issue was whether DVO-based valuation could inflate long-term capital gains for a co-owner. The Tribunal held that once co-owner relief applies, the DVO-based addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether an appeal can be dismissed outright for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal held that appellate authorities must first examine if advance tax was actually payable before rejecting the appeal.
The dispute concerned taxability of gains from sale of land located outside municipal boundaries. The Tribunal ruled that such land remains agricultural in nature and is not chargeable to capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority decided the case without proper hearing and remanded the issue of section 54F deduction for fresh examination of additional evidence.
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses merely alleging cash payments without evidence. The Tribunal ruled that expenses supported by records and banking transactions cannot be disallowed on presumptions.
The decision limits tax exposure by holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetization should be assessed on an estimated profit basis when business records are accepted.
The dispute involved taxing unexplained increases in partners capital in the firms assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that such additions, if any, can only be examined in the hands of partners and not the partnership firm.
The case addressed whether exemption could be disallowed through prima facie adjustment under section 143(1). The Tribunal held such denial impermissible and ordered fresh consideration.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of acquisition could be fixed on assumptions. It held that government-notified MVR rates must be considered and ad-hoc estimates cannot replace statutory valuation methods.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
