Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
The issue was whether the entire purchase amount could be added under Section 69C based solely on an entry-operator’s denial. The Tribunal ruled that since sales were accepted and books not rejected, only a 10% estimated disallowance was justified.
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
The issue was whether a transfer pricing adjustment could survive when based solely on DRI allegations later dropped. The Tribunal held that once customs authorities exonerated the assessee, the TP adjustment had no foundation and was rightly deleted.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void under the faceless regime. Since the assessments were invalid, all consequential penalty orders were also quashed.
The issue was whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed under Section 69C. ITAT Mumbai held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, only the profit element can be taxed, restricting the addition to 6%.
The case examined taxability of stamp duty differential in the hands of a housewife joint owner. The Tribunal ruled that absence of financial contribution bars addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings fail where notices do not clearly state whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. Vague notices violate statutory requirements, leading to deletion of penalty.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void. Under the faceless reassessment scheme, only the Faceless AO has jurisdiction to act.
The issue concerned whether failure to deduct TDS on foreign commission warranted disallowance. The Tribunal held that Section 195 is triggered only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India, reaffirming settled Supreme Court principles.
