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...
ITAT Mumbai deletes ₹27.40 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding cash deposits as genuine business advances for car bookings, duly supported by confirmations, PAN, and invoices; non-response of customers cannot justify addition without proper verification.
ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹1.64 Cr reassessment for faceless violation & time-barred notice u/s 148; holds jurisdictional defect fatal, TOLA cannot extend limitation.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹8.44 crore was unsustainable as it was based on incorrect assumptions about multiple bank accounts. It ruled that properly recorded and explained transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that cash deposits were supported by disclosed sale consideration and documentary evidence. It held that unverified objections could not override confirmed transactions.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. It ruled that invoking extended time under Section 149 without satisfying this condition is illegal.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The tribunal held that penalty for non-appearance cannot be sustained when reasonable cause exists. Ignorance of proceedings and factual circumstances justified relief.
The Tribunal held that mere suspicion of bogus transactions without supporting evidence cannot justify addition under section 68. Proper documentation of sales and purchases led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that a claim admitted at the appellate stage must be examined on merits and cannot be denied merely due to time lapse. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
