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...
ITAT Chandigarh restricted the unexplained cash addition to ₹2.5 lakh, deleting ₹10 lakh in Sher Singh vs ITO for AY 2017–18, citing partial explanation from agricultural and milk income.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of additions under Section 68 after the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of lenders. Interest disallowance was also deleted as loans were repaid and taxed transactions verified.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by CIT(A) since cash deposit during demonetization duly reflected as cash sales and there was no abnormal spike in sales during demonetization.
Madras High Court quashes assessment against SMILE Microfinance Ltd. for violation of natural justice and directs reassessment with personal hearing within 12 weeks.
ITAT held that funds from earlier years and IDS disclosures cannot justify cash deposits made in a later year without proper linkage or documentation. Addition under Section 68 was upheld.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the addition of ₹1.77 Cr as unexplained cash credit, directing the Assessing Officer to verify evidence, including the assessee’s claim of exempt agricultural income.
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that additional income offered by a taxpayer during a survey, derived from business-related discrepancies like excess cash or stock, must be taxed at normal business rates. The tribunal held that the punitive tax rate under Section 115BBE does not apply if the income is clearly established as business income and does not fall under the deemed income provisions (Sections 69 to 69D).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly accepted excess stock and cash disclosed during survey as business income after enquiry. Section 115BBE was not applicable, and PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was invalid.
The ITAT Ahmedabad sent back a case involving an addition of Rs.1.17 crore for unexplained cash deposits to the AO. The remand was necessary because the CIT(A) issued an ex-parte order without verifying the evidence submitted by the assessee.
