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...
Once the cash credit addition failed, the special tax under Section 115BBE could not survive. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, reaffirming that consequential provisions fall with the primary addition.
The penalty was levied solely on the basis of an alleged unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the quantum addition was fully deleted, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty automatically collapses.
It was ruled that deciding appeals based on facts of another year is a serious legal error. The matter was sent back for reconsideration on correct facts.
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that absence of evidence beyond one month bars estimation for the full year. Only the amount directly supported by survey material can be taxed.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
Applying judicial relief on Section 115BBE, the remaining tax demand fell below the prescribed threshold. The ruling reiterates that revenue appeals must be dismissed when tax effect is below CBDT limits.
