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 held that invoking Section 115BBE on survey-related excess stock was legally unsustainable for AY 2015-16. The addition was therefore liable to be taxed at normal rates.
The tribunal observed that Way Bills produced by the assessee prima facie supported the claim of business sales. The addition was therefore set aside and restored for fresh verification.
The tribunal deleted the balance addition of ₹91,090 after finding that the amounts represented periodic rental receipts duly disclosed with TDS credit. The key takeaway is that disclosed income cannot be re-taxed as unexplained cash.
The Tribunal held that income admitted during search cannot be treated as undisclosed income unless supported by incriminating material found in the search. In the absence of such material, penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be sustained.
Only income supported by cash actually found during search could attract penal consequences. The balance amount, unsupported by incriminating material, was held outside the scope of Section 271AAB.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that unexplained cash credit under Section 68 must be netted off against business income to prevent double addition. The ruling ensures accurate assessment and fair taxation.
Cash deposits were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The Revenue sustained addition by assuming 50% of cash withdrawals were used for household expenses. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion-based estimates cannot replace evidence and granted substantial relief.
