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 case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed as time-barred should be revived when delay was caused by a tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the cases for merits-based adjudication.
The appeals were dismissed solely due to delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that substantive justice requires condonation, though costs may be imposed for repeated defaults.
The issue was whether partners’ capital contributions could be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the firm’s hands. The ITAT ruled that once partners are identified and capital intro-duction is proved, section 68 cannot be applied to the firm.
The Tribunal examined whether non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges justified treating the payer as an assessee-in-default. It held that the Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has already paid tax, as mandated by the proviso to section 201(1).
The Tribunal ruled that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance and must decide it on merits, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal ruled that a creditor’s write-off alone cannot trigger section 41(1) taxation. The assessee’s liability persisted in its books, and the ₹10.23 crore addition was deleted.
