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 clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
While sales proceeds were claimed as the source, unexplained cash receipts appeared in the cash book. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine deposits after detailed verification of records.
The dispute involved additions of partners capital treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal did not rule on merits but remanded the matter due to procedural violation by the appellate authority. It highlights that appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking.
The tribunal held that estimating commission income at 1% without verifying the existence of a genuine Shroff business was legally unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether unsecured loans from directors routed through a partnership firm could be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through books and bank records, section 68 addition cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be explained as cash sales. Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal upheld addition under section 69A, finding implausible sales patterns, rejected books, and lack of evidence; human probability prevailed over book entries.
The Tribunal held that no commission income can arise from circular transactions within group entities. Additions based on estimated commission for such intra-group sales were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction, without inquiry or verification by the AO, is unsustainable. Independent application of mind is mandatory under the new regime.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without issuing a compulsory notice under section 153C lacks jurisdiction. Even seized material cannot cure this foundational defect, rendering the order void ab initio.
