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 held that a reassessment notice issued after three years was invalid as sanction was taken from an incompetent authority. The assessment was quashed for non-compliance with section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) where interest income was earned from deposits with a co-operative bank. It held that a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for this purpose.
ITAT Indore held that delay of 560 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) rightly not condoned as assessee has failed to give satisfactory and bonafide explanation. Accordingly, delay not condoned as no sufficient cause shown.
The issue was whether an Assessing Officer can travel beyond limited scrutiny without mandatory approval. The Tribunal held that such action violates binding CBDT Instructions and renders the assessment void from inception
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
The ITAT held that where investments are fully backed by substantial own funds and a rational suo-motu disallowance is made, Rule 8D cannot be mechanically invoked. The Revenue’s attempt to make an additional disallowance was rejected.
The Tribunal held that a surrender during survey cannot justify additions without supporting material. Statements under Section 133A lack evidentiary value unless backed by records. Additions based solely on surrender were deleted.
The ITAT held that even a small part payment through banking channels before or on the agreement date is sufficient to invoke the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Substantial payment or possession is not a statutory requirement.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed after the expiry of Section 153 is invalid, even if it follows DRP directions. The is that limitation under Section 153 remains mandatory and cannot be bypassed through the DRP route.
The ITAT held that unsecured loans totaling ₹1.05 crore could not be added under Section 68 where the AO failed to make any inquiry or issue summons, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot justify additions.
