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 condoned a 294-day delay and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for AY 2017-18. Cash deposits of ₹49,80,700/- were initially treated as unexplained income under section 68. The ruling allows the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that although transportation proof was lacking and the supplier was unverifiable, accepted sales established that trading had occurred. It ruled that only the profit element of 2% could be added, and the addition could not be taxed under section 115BBE.
ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
Parasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Dehradun) Rule 29 Rescues Assessee- Loans Need Fresh Look: ITAT Admits New Evidence, Sends Rs.90 Lakh Addition Back to AO Assessee appealed against NFAC order dated 08.10.2024 sustaining addition of Rs.90,00,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE towards unsecured loans from M/s Yogya Shippings Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50 lakh) & M/s […]
The Tribunal found the Final Assessment Order invalid as it was issued before the 30-day objection period under Section 144C expired. This violated the assessee’s procedural rights. All transfer pricing adjustments and tax demands linked to the order were deleted, partly allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of corporate credit card payments. The decision emphasizes that taxpayers must be provided a final opportunity to substantiate deposits and income before any additions are finalized. This safeguards procedural fairness in tax proceedings.
Tribunal held that an investment already assessed substantively in another person’s hands cannot again be taxed under Section 69. The case was remanded to avoid double taxation and ensure consistent adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order, confirming deletion of additions related to unexplained creditors, GST, bogus purchases, and purchase differences. Proper reconciliation and supporting documents established genuineness, highlighting the importance of maintaining accurate records.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be taxed u/s 68 when all sales were recorded, verified, and supported by stock and VAT records. Since books were audited, accepted, and showed no defect, the addition of ₹12.20 crore based on mere averages was unsustainable. The ruling confirms that documented cash sales cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit.
