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...
ITAT Mumbai held that courses not having any approval or affiliation with any authority cannot be ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act granted since activity of imparting education within meaning of section 2(15).
Tribunal clarified that the Section 251 amendment uses the term ‘may set aside,’ meaning it is discretionary. Since the issue was already resolved in remand, addition was deleted.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices must be issued through NFAC under the 2022 Faceless Scheme. A JAO-issued notice violates the mandatory procedure and stands invalid.
Tribunal quashed CIT(A)’s cryptic order that upheld addition based solely on IDS declaration. The case is remanded to ensure a fair hearing, full analysis of the Joint Development Agreement, and accurate determination of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order on land ownership and capital-asset status. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication and proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
ITAT held that cash sales forming part of disclosed turnover cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credits. The ruling confirms that Section 68 does not apply when books are intact and evidence supports the sales.
ITAT held that the assessee operated as a commission agent, not a trader, making Section 44AD inapplicable. A reasonable 5% estimation on cash deposits was upheld.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
