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...
The issue was whether the full value of alleged bogus purchases could be added to income. The Tribunal upheld that only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where loan repayments were sourced from stock sales and fresh loans. It ruled that without rejecting books or disproving records, section 68 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal deleted both substantive and protective additions made across multiple years on the same alleged receipts. It held that such duplication results in impermissible multiple taxation of identical amounts.
The Tribunal held that serving notices on an outdated email ID violates principles of natural justice. The assessment was set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication after proper service.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits arising from regulated liquor sales are a normal business incident. Where bank reconciliations explain the source, Section 69A cannot be invoked.
The case examined whether customer advances reported in service tax returns constituted taxable revenue. The Tribunal ruled that revenue accrues only on execution of conveyance deeds, and advances cannot be treated as under-reported turnover.
The dispute arose from purchases made from vendors with weak tax profiles. The Tribunal held that vendor defaults do not justify section 69C when the assessee proves the source and recording of expenditure.
The Assessing Officer accepted multiple loan transactions but treated only one as unexplained. The tribunal held that selective rejection without consistent reasoning was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that when an eligible assessee fails to file objections before the DRP within time, a direct appeal to the Tribunal is barred. Non-compliance with section 144C renders the appeal non-maintainable.
The ruling clarifies that if purchases, stock, and trading results are accepted and books are not rejected, sales proceeds cannot be taxed as unexplained cash credits.
