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 dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
The Tribunal invalidated reassessment proceedings since the Section 148 notice was issued after 01.04.2021, making it time-barred. The ruling reinforces strict limitation compliance for reopening cases.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not participate in proceedings due to lack of knowledge. It remanded the matter to ensure proper hearing and adjudication on merits.
The case addressed disallowance of interest under Section 57 for lack of nexus. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, holding that consistency in earlier years and increased investments justified the claim.
The issue involved eligibility of interest from employee loans. The tribunal ruled that such income is not directly linked to core credit activity. Therefore, it is taxable as income from other sources
The issue involved taxability of interest earned from statutory deposits. The tribunal held that such income is attributable to business activities and qualifies for deduction. This highlights the importance of statutory obligations in determining tax treatment.
The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the outcome of reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that different floors of the same building constitute one residential house. Deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied on the ground of structural division.
The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but deleted addition where advances were supported by evidence.
The issue involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained credit. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by recorded sales and identifiable debtors, Section 68 cannot be invoked.
