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 Revenue relied on third-party statements and WhatsApp data to allege an unrecorded ₹25 crore cash loan, but brought no supporting inquiry or cross-examination. The Tribunal held that the AO’s conclusion was speculative, especially when bank-backed evidence, TDS records, and a registered loan agreement supported only a ₹10 crore loan. Key takeaway: additions under Section 69A require concrete evidence, not assumptions.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully supported by stock records and sales invoices, proving they were genuine business receipts. It ruled that Section 68 cannot apply to recorded turnover already taxed.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules routine cash deposits of small traders cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, even if no return is filed.
Tribunal directs AO to apply the 30% tax rate on unexplained cash deposits during Nov–Dec 2016, citing Madras High Court ruling, partially allowing assessee’s appeal.
The Delhi ITAT rejected the TPO’s proposed uplift and held that the interest rate charged on the loan to the Jordan AE aligned with the Jordan Central Bank rate. The ALP at 3.55% was accepted, deleting the proposed TP adjustment.
ITAT Kolkata quashed a reassessment order, holding that NFAC had no jurisdiction before the formal notification of Section 151A. The ₹2.14 crore addition was deleted, highlighting that faceless assessments cannot be retroactively enforced.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
ITAT partly allowed appeal against additions under section 144, applying 6% net profit instead of AO’s 8% on total cash deposits. Returned income under section 44AD was deducted, and normal tax rates applied instead of section 115BBE.
