Income Tax : What is an ITR? Learn about the different ITR forms (SAHAJ, SUGAM), who is eligible for each, the modes of electronic and manual f...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT deleted a 69C unexplained expenditure addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that when corresponding sales are ac...
Income Tax : The ITAT deleted a protective addition under Section 68 for cash deposits after finding the same income was already declared and t...
Income Tax : Interest under Section 234B cannot be levied on Section 115BBE-assessed income for resident senior citizens exempt from advance ta...
Income Tax : The issue was whether cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained. The Tribunal held that when sales are rec...
Finance : The issue was whether a loan can be treated as unexplained despite full repayment within the year. The Tribunal held that once rec...
Income Tax : The issue was whether the appellate authority could delete a large unexplained investment without following Rule 46A. The Tribunal...
Income Tax : The issue was whether cash found at a third party’s premises could be added in the assessee’s 153A assessment. The Tribunal he...
Income Tax : ITAT held that refusal to admit evidence due to factory sealing and death of the assessee was unjustified and ordered fresh assess...
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes ₹33 lakh addition under Section 115BBE, ruling that cash seized and declared as business income should be taxed at normal rates, not as unexplained income.
Summary of Deepika Garg vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) for AY 2017-18. The ruling deletes a Rs. 24 lakh addition for alleged bogus cash sales, upholding the assessee’s audited books and documented transactions.
ITAT Jaipur deletes ₹6.26 Cr. addition u/s 68, stating it would be double taxation. Tribunal also rules that the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding the case for verification of already submitted documents.
ITAT Delhi rules against double taxation, deleting a Rs.50.18 lakh addition after finding that cash deposits were sourced from sales already accepted and taxed.
ITAT Delhi rules recorded cash sales are not unexplained income under Section 68, preventing double taxation, even during demonetization, if books are accepted.
An ITAT Delhi ruling has partially allowed appeals by the tax department, reducing significant cash deposit additions and clarifying the applicability of Section 115BBE.
The Delhi ITAT has ruled that while unexplained demonetization cash deposits are taxable, the 60% rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Bangalore deletes a Section 68 addition on a trader’s demonetisation deposits, ruling that cash from business receipts cannot be taxed again after turnover is accepted.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a ₹39.83 crore addition to Santosh Trust, ruling that its cash deposits during demonetization were explained by regular fee collections
