The ITAT held that the incorrect payment date mentioned in the Tax Audit Report was an obvious typographical mistake and not evidence of delayed PF payment. The issue was remanded for limited verification, with the deduction to be allowed upon confirmation of the challans.
The SC declined to interfere with the High Court ruling that Rule 86A cannot be used to create a negative Electronic Credit Ledger. The judgment clarifies that authorities may recover dues through other statutory remedies.
Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section 68 in the facts of the case. Following its earlier decision, it upheld taxation only of the profit embedded in the transactions.
Understand who must undergo a tax audit under Section 44AB, the applicable turnover limits, audit forms, filing procedure, due date, and penalties for non-compliance. This guide explains the key compliance requirements for businesses and professionals.
The ITAT Pune upheld the deletion of an addition made by extrapolating a small unreconciled difference in Form 26AS to the entire year’s receipts. It held that the Assessing Officer’s approach ignored the revised reconciliation and could not form the basis for estimating undisclosed income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire financial year without corroborative material. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the profit element for a three-month period.
ITAT Delhi held that merely reflecting depreciation in an incorrect schedule of the income tax return could not justify an addition under Section 69. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for tsunami-affected persons does not fall within the definition of a residential complex and is therefore not liable to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the demand after following its earlier decisions on similar rehabilitation projects.
The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment cannot be sustained merely because of high-value bank transactions without evidence of escaped income. It quashed the Section 148 notices and Section 148A(3) orders after finding that the transactions were recorded in audited books and adequately explained.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely filing an income tax return does not amount to retracting a statement recorded under Section 132(4). It upheld the restoration of the Rs.1.5 crore addition after finding the alleged retraction to be belated.
