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 reassessment was framed ex-parte after notices were served on a wrong email address. ITAT Delhi ruled that effective hearing is a sine qua non under the law, and proceedings based on faulty service cannot stand. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte citing non-prosecution. ITAT Delhi held that mere issuance of notices does not satisfy the requirement of effective hearing. The order was quashed and the matter sent back for fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the prior order as the deceased assessee could not represent himself and legal heirs were not on record. CIT(A) is directed to consider all issues afresh, including denial of indexed cost and 54F exemption.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that reassessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte without examining key issues on transfer, valuation, and cost, directing a fresh assessment with opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal ruled that cash seized and previously taxed in the brother’s assessment cannot be taxed again in the assessee’s hands, remanding the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that legal control under a JDA constitutes transfer for capital gains purposes. The assessee must provide acquisition cost details for recomputation.
The Tribunal directed a fresh adjudication after the assessee was wrongly credited with company income due to erroneous PAN and 26AS entries, emphasizing fair play over technical delay.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
