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...
Given the assessee’s admission of incorrect turnover and failure to get accounts audited, the Tribunal found income estimation justified. However, finding that the AO’s 4% rate was slightly high and unsupported by specific defects, it revised the rate to 3.5%. Key takeaway: estimation must be justified and proportionate to facts on record.
ITAT held that reassessment notices under sections 147/148 were invalid as the reasons were vague and lacked tangible evidence. Reopening cannot be used merely to verify or scrutinize transactions without proper justification.
The Tribunal ruled that duty drawback income recognized on cash receipt basis cannot be taxed on accrual, as consistent accounting practice caused no revenue loss.
Enhancement of cash deposits by CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper hearing. ITAT remitted the case for fresh adjudication, safeguarding the assessee’s opportunity to explain transactions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for re-examination of a section 36(1)(va) addition due to inadvertent error in the original audit report. The matter was restored to the AO to pass a speaking order. This highlights the importance of rectifying audit errors to prevent wrongful income additions.
The Tribunal held that suspicion or reference to unconnected investigations cannot justify denying legitimate interest expenditure. It reiterated that opening balances accepted in earlier years cannot be treated as non-genuine in a subsequent year without contrary evidence.
The ITAT held that an assessee’s procedural lapses cannot override statutory entitlement to deductions under section 10A. The AO must verify substantive conditions, including STPI registration and export realization, before rejecting a claim.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued without the correct statutory sanction under section 151(ii) are void ab initio, emphasizing that procedural compliance is crucial before examining merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of multiple residences does not disqualify a taxpayer from Section 54F benefits. It upheld the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the deduction and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on contrary precedent.
Reopening Based on Incorrect LTCG Information Invalid; Long-Held Penny-Stock Shares Treated as Genuine — ITAT Mumbai Quashes Additions
