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 past cash withdrawals cannot justify demonetisation deposits without evidence of continued cash holding. The is that unexplained deposits attract section 69A.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from recorded pharmacy sales during demonetisation cannot be added under section 68 when turnover is accepted and duly taxed.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld ₹59.9 lakh addition from demonetisation-period cash deposits and GP estimation, confirming the rejection of unverifiable books due to abnormal sales and fraudulent stock.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that detailed stock, sales, VAT, and bank records satisfactorily explained cash deposits of ₹2.07 crore, overturning additions made by AO and CIT(A).
ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. Revenue cannot levy additions where investments are legitimate and documented.
