Income Tax : This FAQ guide explains the applicability of ITR forms, filing methods, due dates, penalties, and taxpayer obligations for AY 2026...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that non-compliance with Section 144B raised a jurisdictional issue requiring ITAT adjudication and set asi...
Income Tax : ITAT Allahabad held that estimating gross profit solely on the basis of the subsequent years GP rate is not justified after reject...
Income Tax : ITAT held that mere transfer of records cannot replace a valid transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127, rendering the assessmen...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat held that rural agricultural land falls outside Section 2(14), deleting capital gains and related additions....
Income Tax : ITAT remanded the matter after holding that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without giving reasons or properly considering ...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
Bombay High Court held that non-compliance with Section 144B raised a jurisdictional issue requiring ITAT adjudication and set aside its order.
ITAT Allahabad held that estimating gross profit solely on the basis of the subsequent years GP rate is not justified after rejection of books. It directed estimation based on the average of preceding and succeeding years’ accepted trading results.
ITAT held that mere transfer of records cannot replace a valid transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127, rendering the assessment invalid.
ITAT Surat held that rural agricultural land falls outside Section 2(14), deleting capital gains and related additions.
ITAT remanded the matter after holding that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without giving reasons or properly considering the assessee’s submissions.
The ITAT Ahmedabad admitted additional evidence relating to foreign remittances and restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication. It held that the documents were necessary for proper determination of the issues.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s contention regarding ownership of the bank account required proper verification before sustaining the addition under Section 69A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. It upheld the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in the DRP’s order could not justify sustaining a ₹10 lakh addition. It held that the Assessing Officer should have implemented the DRP’s directions in substance and deleted the entire addition.
