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...
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an income tax addition made under Section 69A based on seized on-money documents lacking direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the entire cash component couldn’t be treated as undisclosed income, instead taxing only 8% of the disputed amount as a profit element at normal rates.
Delhi ITAT deleted ₹40.07 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-era cash deposits in proprietary firms, because the AO had accepted the audited books showing sufficient cash balance. The ruling emphasizes that additions for business deposits cant be made when the books arent rejected and sales/purchases arent doubted.
The Delhi ITAT sustained a Rs.42.98 lakh addition for unexplained expenditure found in a seized diary, ruling that the entries proved a sufficient nexus to the assessee under Section 292C. However, the Tribunal provided partial relief by directing the lower tax rate under the pre-amendment Section 115BBE to be applied for AY 2015-16.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT deleted a protective addition under Section 68 for cash deposits after finding the same income was already declared and taxed in the partners’ individual returns, rendering the firm’s assessment redundant.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is inapplicable to additional income surrendered during a survey operation that took place before the provision was amended to prescribe the enhanced rate.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹14 lakh cash deposit addition during demonetization, ruling that retaining cash from duly accounted sources for a long period is not grounds for suspicion.
The ITAT Agra set aside an ex-parte order dismissing a tax appeal, ruling that the CIT(A) must adhere to Section 250(6) by providing a reasoned order on the merits of the additions, even if the assessee is non-cooperative.
