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 Raipur set aside an ex-parte appellate order where the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
ITAT Chandigarh allowed a delayed appeal of 457 days, holding that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay and the Limitation Act provisions applied. Appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
ITAT holds that the temples bona fide belief in statutory exemption justified a 607-day delay. Assessments and penalties are remanded for fresh review considering exemption applicability.
ITAT Chandigarh condoned an 87-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee acted on genuine advice about CPC TDS rectification, emphasizing substantial justice over technical dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. Key takeaway: cases dismissed mechanically must be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
The ITAT remitted the case for fresh assessment after the assessee challenged unexplained cash additions, highlighting the need for proper documentation and adherence to natural justice in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation for delay and held that denial of opportunity justified remand for fresh assessment under Section 147/144B.
