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 cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
The AO alleged concocted sales but brought no evidence, and the CIT(A) also found no discrepancies in the accounts. With complete documentation showing genuine sales and business use of funds, the Tribunal removed most of the addition. Section 115BBE was also ruled inapplicable for the year.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, as they fall outside TOLA provisions and are time-barred.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte dismissal of the AY 2018-19 appeal, restoring the matter to CIT(A) for merits-based hearing. The assessee was allowed to present evidence regarding ₹3.74 crore unexplained investment and estimated profits.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained through duly recorded cash sales supported by VAT returns and stock records. Key takeaway: When books are accepted, cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained.
Tribunal partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
The AO changed the charge from bogus payments to 69A ‘Unaccounted Sales’ without issuing a fresh notice, denying the assessee a proper hearing. ITAT remanded the matter for verification of documentary evidence including invoices, GST returns, and e-way bills.
