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...
Since voluntarily filed returns could not be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963) and additional evidence was inadmissible and that the seized cash was rightly treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, taxable under Section 115BBE.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money found during the course of search is liable to be deleted since assessee has discharged his onus to prove that the cash found is completely verifiable from the audited books of accounts.
ITAT Chennai deletes Rs.1.86 Cr unsecured loan addition u/s 68 after verifying director source. Remands Rs.1.01Cr cash payment (40A(3)) and restricts TDS default (40(a)(ia)) additions.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a cryptic CIT(A) order and remanded the entire case to the AO, directing a de novo inquiry into unexplained fixed deposits, cash, and flat investment after admitting new bank certificates and considering natural justice principles.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed source of income cannot be sustained merely because this amount is not reported in Tax Audit Report since transaction is duly recorded in books of accounts.
Mumbai ITAT quashes ₹1.76 Cr unexplained investment tax on NRI homemaker, ruling joint registration doesn’t justify addition when funds came solely from husband.
Mere act of depositing cash into a bank account, even during demonetization, was not conclusive proof of unexplained income under Section 69A especially for a business operating under a presumptive tax scheme.
Pune ITAT upholds ₹35.92 lakh penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income by a Diagnostic Centre proprietor. Admission of unaccounted cash receipts only after tax survey detection was not considered voluntary disclosure.
A summary of ITAT Chennai’s order in Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO, which sustained both unexplained investment under Section 69 and professional receipts found via Form 26AS but not declared in income tax return.
Gujarat High Court held that claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be bogus on the basis of presumption in absence of any corroborative evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
