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 Jaipur held that Urban Improvement Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of State within the meaning thereof. Hence, income is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 14A cannot be applied when no exempt income is earned, deleting a ₹1.24 crore disallowance. The Tribunal also condoned a 99-day filing delay due to reasonable cause.
Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties under Section 37(1) and not deductible.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a ₹10 lakh cash addition treated as unexplained income under section 69 was fully explained through verified land compensation withdrawals. The source, identity, and availability of funds were documented by Revenue authorities, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted in audited books, they cannot be reclassified as unexplained cash credits. The addition of ₹41.74 lakh was struck down as it caused double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-payment of advance tax without first seeking clarification from the assessee. Since the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no advance tax was due, the ITAT restored the matter for fresh consideration. Key takeaway: procedural conditions under Section 249(4)(b) must be applied with fairness and opportunity of hearing.
