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 Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai quashed a reassessment notice under Section 148, holding that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based solely on a change of opinion without fresh tangible material. This safeguards taxpayers from arbitrary reassessments.
ITAT held that charitable trusts without member-wise income shares cannot be taxed at 30% MMR. Tax must be applied at normal slab rates per CBDT Circular 320.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive once the Section 14A addition is deleted, especially where no exempt income was earned. The ruling reiterates that prospective amendments cannot justify retrospective disallowances.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned speaking order and dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proving deliberate non-compliance. The matter was remanded with one final opportunity, reinforcing natural justice requirements.
Tribunal quashed penalty where AO’s addition for alleged bogus purchases was purely estimated, emphasizing that penalties require concrete evidence of income concealment.
ITAT held that before treating high-value purchases as bogus, authorities must verify supplier’s GST status, ITC claims, and money trail. Key takeaway: Procedural diligence is required for large-scale disallowances.
