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 assessee sought relief citing internal lapses and adviser dependence. The Tribunal ruled that consistent audits and filings undermined claims of ignorance. Long delays require specific, convincing justification, which was absent.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
Rejecting a summary denial of deductions, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify whether mortgage repayments and other costs were wholly connected with the transfer. Taxpayers were directed to cooperate and file complete evidence.
Patna High Court held that ITAT was not justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) without demonstrating any perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard by the appellate authority. Accordingly, deletion of addition u/s. 68 by CIT(A) justified and writ allowed.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated in July 2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. The ruling confirms that expired cases cannot be revived under the post-2021 reassessment framework.
ITAT found the recorded reasons vague and non-specific, failing to even identify the nature of alleged escapement. Such mechanical reasons render the notice under section 148 void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned an extraordinary 2315-day delay, noting that the disallowance arose from a return-filing error and not lack of application of income. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
Whether additions under sections 68 and 69C can be made without seized material. In search cases, completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless incriminating material is found during the search.
The issue was whether entire alleged bogus purchases should be added as income after a search assessment. The Tribunal held that where consumption and records are not disputed, only the profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The case examined whether exchange data alone could justify taxing alleged commodity profits. The Tribunal ruled that once the broker admits wrong PAN mapping and identifies the real trader, the addition cannot survive.
