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...
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held to be business receipts already recorded as sales in audited books. The tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 amounts to double taxation.
This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require clear evidence and cannot rest on assumptions.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued with approval of the Member of CBDT instead of Pr. CCIT is void and invalid. Accordingly, order passed under section 147 is without legal standing and hence quashed.
The Tribunal examined demonetisation-period cash deposits and held that prior cash withdrawals supported by bank records could not be disregarded. The ruling clarifies that additions cannot rest on assumptions about personal conduct.
The Tribunal held that once business receipts are taxed on an estimated basis, separate additions for payments and assets from the same receipts are impermissible. Only a net-profit estimation was sustained, deleting multiple cascading additions.
The tribunal accepted that allotment confers enforceable capital rights capable of transfer. The ruling clarifies that proceeds from such transfers must be assessed under capital gains, not deemed income.
The dispute involved taxing unexplained increases in partners capital in the firms assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that such additions, if any, can only be examined in the hands of partners and not the partnership firm.
ITAT Hyderabad held that limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be only 3 years from the end of the assessment year since material suggesting escapement is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond period of limitation of three years hence quashed.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that prior withdrawals from the bank sufficiently explained the deposits, warranting deletion of the addition.
The tribunal held that cash deposits were largely explained through earlier withdrawals and business receipts. Only an estimated 10% addition was sustained, and harsh taxation under section 115BBE was ruled out.
