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 Tribunal ruled that cash deposited during demonetisation came from genuine business sales already offered to tax. It held that taxing the same amount again under Section 68 and Section 115BBE would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal directed normal taxation, holding that Section 115BBE could not be invoked for the year involved. This reinforces the prospective operation of the higher tax regime.
The Tribunal restricted additions on demonetization-era cash deposits where books were audited and not rejected. Only a nominal amount was sustained to balance equity.
Where real estate sale proceeds and donations are transparently reflected in financial statements, unexplained money provisions fail. The decision reinforces limits on Revenues powers based on conjecture.
The Tribunal held that a continuously maintained ledger found during search constituted reliable evidence. Additions for unexplained expenditure under section 69C were sustained based on corroborated diary entries.
The AO had treated all bank cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that regular cash sales explained most deposits and restricted the addition to ₹10 lakh only.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained by cash sales recorded in regular books. When books are not rejected and sales are accepted, separate addition is unsustainable.
The dispute included disallowance under section 14A exceeding exempt income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income and rejected a higher computation. The decision reinforces judicial limits on Rule 8D application.
The Tribunal found that additions under section 69A were made without examining evidence due to non-compliance. The matter was remanded to allow verification of claimed trading and agricultural receipts.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation was fully explainable from business receipts. ITAT held that explanations were partly unreliable and sustained 50% of the addition under Section 68.
