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 held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted ₹35.22 lakh added under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetisation. It held that audited books, recorded cash sales, and sufficient cash balance fully explained the deposits.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of ₹3.67 crore added as unexplained cash credit from Singapore art exhibition sales. It held that detailed export, remittance, and bank evidence fully established the genuineness and source of funds.
Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to provide underlying material before passing order under Section 148A(d) invalidates reopening. The assessment order was consequently quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Non-compliance with amended section 151 rendered the notice and entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that without any incriminating material belonging to the assessee found during search, proceedings under Section 153C are invalid. Addition based solely on third-party statements was set aside.
ITAT ruled that a 76/23 split in chats reflected proposed refurbishment costs, not undisclosed cash consideration. In absence of corroborative material, addition under Sections 69 and 115BBE was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. As the mandatory requirement of year-wise satisfaction was not met, the entire assessment was quashed.
ITAT ruled that once cash sales are recorded in audited books and accepted by the AO, taxing the same deposits again would result in double addition. The deletion of ₹1.54 crore was upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts received were repayments of past advances and could not be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the current year. Additions were deleted as they did not pertain to fresh transactions.
