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 AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
ITAT Visakhapatnam, in case of Subbarao Jaladi v. ITO, set aside an addition of ₹6,37,16,100/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained bank cash deposits.
The ITAT set aside a massive unexplained investment addition made on a joint bank account, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider vital documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case is remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the documents, which claim the deposits were company business, not personal income.
The ITAT deleted a Rs. 23.30 Lakh protective addition made in the firm’s hands under Section 68, as the corresponding cash deposit had already been offered to tax by the partners. The Tribunal ruled that once the real recipient (partners) has paid tax, the protective assessment on the firm becomes redundant and cannot lead to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s decision to restrict lakh addition to 1% in a client code modification case, ruling the assessee acted solely as a broker, not a beneficiary.
ITAT Chennai restored a lakh addition made u/s 115BBC to a trust, granting one chance to furnish complete donor details (name, address, PAN, and mode of receipt).
ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal in Samir N. Shah Vs ITO, holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars cannot be levied when the underlying income addition is made solely by estimating a gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases, in the absence of concrete evidence like seized material or cash transactions.
The Tribunal confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. Following Calcutta High Court precedents, the ITAT rejected the Revenue’s attempt to apply the prospective Finance Act 2022 amendment to the relevant assessment year (AY 2014-15).
This ruling invalidates an income tax addition that relied entirely on electronic data (an excel sheet) seized from a third party without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The ITAT stressed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, clear linking of the assessee to the data, and providing due process, the addition made was illegal and unsustainable in law.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
