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...
Tribunal rules that Section 54 deduction applies to property purchased outside India before the 2015 amendment, overturning CIT(A) decision.
ITAT held that the AO’s 8% estimation had no support from comparables or past margins. Applying consistency with earlier family-group cases, profit was fixed at 4% and the unexplained investment addition became academic.
Tribunal ruled Section 54F exemption is not available when the assessee owns multiple independent residential units, each with a separate kitchen. Deduction on the JDA property was disallowed.
ITAT held that cash sales forming part of disclosed turnover cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credits. The ruling confirms that Section 68 does not apply when books are intact and evidence supports the sales.
Evidence demonstrated frequent withdrawals and redeposits across years, confirming the legitimacy of the cash held. The Tribunal ruled that the deposits were fully explained, warranting removal of the Section 69A/115BBE addition.
ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was fully backed by prior withdrawals exceeding ₹47 lakh. The ruling confirms that demonstrated cash availability defeats Section 68 additions.
The tax authority’s assessment and penalty were set aside as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to submit documents or Rule 46A application. The court emphasized adherence to natural justice before rejecting section 54F claims.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that cash advances discovered during a survey must be assessed as business income, not unexplained cash credit under Section 68, making the exercise tax-neutral.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit during demonetization under section 68 without rejection of books of accounts is unwarranted. Further, addition is also not warranted as genuineness of cash sale duly proved.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 56(2) towards receipt of gift from HUF to be re-considered for exemption under section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with specific direction.
