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 the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹2.10 Cr addition u/s 68 for share call-money; statements not supplied or cross-examined. Identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of subscribers proven; ad-hoc disallowance also deleted.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is remanded, directing the AO to re-decide the penalty after the quantum order is finalized.
The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
Professional and technical advisory services rendered from India to foreign clients in connection with overseas securities offerings qualify for deduction under Section 80-O as there was coordinate Bench’s decision in the assessee’s own case for AY 1995-96
ITAT Delhi permits set-off of brought forward long-term and current year short-term capital losses against long-term capital gains, overruling CPC and CIT(A).
The Tribunal directed AO to compute Section 14A disallowance only for investments generating exempt income, following Rule 8D. The decision reinforces the need for precise calculation of disallowances against exempt income.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
CIT(A) wrongly rejected the assessee’s rectification petition under section 154 despite portal evidence. ITAT restored the appeal for fresh adjudication with full opportunity to submit evidence.
ITAT rules that an additional 54B claim omitted in the original return cannot be mechanically rejected. AO must examine the claim on merits, verifying capital gains utilisation and statutory conditions.
