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 ruled that reliance on statements without offering cross-examination and without supporting evidence violates principles of natural justice. Additions under Sections 69A and 153C were set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits made during demonetization cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 if sufficient cash balance is recorded in regular books of account.
The Tribunal held that after submission of primary creditor details, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the claim. The case was remanded to ensure fair opportunity and proper inquiry.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
The assessee challenged jurisdiction for lack of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that once the belated return was invalid, assessment under Section 144 was lawful.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or digital communication cannot replace proof of possession or ownership.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash can only be assessed in the year in which it is seized. An addition made in an incorrect assessment year is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise an assessment when the very issue was already under challenge before the appellate authority. Parallel revision proceedings were held to be impermissible.
