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 ITAT significantly reduced an unexplained cash credit addition from Rs. 32.86 lakh to a lump-sum of Rs.4 lakh, reasoning that a regular exporter with maintained books cannot have the entire demonetisation deposit treated as unexplained. Crucially, the Tribunal directed the tax to be computed at normal rates, holding that Section 115BBE (higher tax rate) does not apply to the financial year 2016-17.
Tribunal held that write-off of ₹9.56 crore foreign investment in USA subsidiary was incurred for commercial expediency and business expansion, qualifying as business loss under the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that cash deposits of Rs.9.37 crore made by Arvindbhai Jewellers during demonetisation were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was invalid, as there was no defect in the quantitative stock register, and suspicion alone cannot be a basis for addition.
Interest under Section 234B cannot be levied on Section 115BBE-assessed income for resident senior citizens exempt from advance tax, as per ITAT and CBDT guidance.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, including a ₹75 lakh unexplained cash advance addition, after finding that the earlier dismissal was based purely on a procedural technicality. The ruling emphasizes that the CIT(A) must use their wide powers to adjudicate on merits and cannot reject an appeal at the threshold.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
The ITAT ruled that crore cash found in a locker during a search was not “unexplained money” because the assessee immediately explained the source as accumulated speculative business income and offered it to tax. The Tribunal held that a disclosed source, even if unrecorded, cannot be forcefully converted into unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that the crore addition, made solely because the assessee’s petrol pump was allegedly unauthorized to accept SBNs, was incorrect. Since the cash deposits were sourced from historical, recorded cash sales accepted by the AO, taxing the deposits again would constitute impermissible double taxation.
The ruling establishes that the AO cannot selectively accept total sales and profit figures while disbelieving a corresponding cash deposit from those sales without rejecting the books or providing concrete proof of bogus entries. Treating the recorded cash deposits as unexplained income is illegal double taxation.
