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 ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that a 3,134-day delay deserved condonation where the assessee proved non-service of the assessment order. The key takeaway is that absence of service constitutes sufficient cause and justice cannot be denied on limitation alone.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance of interest paid on housing loan is upheld since assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence like loan sanction letter or bank certificate. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The assessing officer estimated commission income by assuming investments were accommodation entries. The tribunal confirmed that additions based on assumptions, without concrete evidence, are legally unsustainable.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could delete a large unexplained investment without following Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that bypassing mandatory procedure invalidates the relief, and the matter must be re-examined.
The issue was whether delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions paid before filing the return could be allowed. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Checkmate Services is declaratory and applies to earlier years, mandating disallowance.
The Tribunal ruled that additions for alleged cash payments cannot survive when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. Absence of corroboration and denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal ruled that interest on fixed deposits is not taxable when earned by a State instrumentality. Since it was assessed as “income from other sources,” the trade-or-business exception under Article 289(2) did not apply.
