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 in Surya Kant Gupta vs. ITO deleted an income addition, ruling that cash withdrawals can explain deposits and the 60% tax rate doesn’t apply retrospectively.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes ₹33 lakh addition under Section 115BBE, ruling that cash seized and declared as business income should be taxed at normal rates, not as unexplained income.
Summary of Deepika Garg vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) for AY 2017-18. The ruling deletes a Rs. 24 lakh addition for alleged bogus cash sales, upholding the assessee’s audited books and documented transactions.
ITAT Jaipur deletes ₹6.26 Cr. addition u/s 68, stating it would be double taxation. Tribunal also rules that the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding the case for verification of already submitted documents.
ITAT Delhi rules against double taxation, deleting a Rs.50.18 lakh addition after finding that cash deposits were sourced from sales already accepted and taxed.
ITAT Delhi rules recorded cash sales are not unexplained income under Section 68, preventing double taxation, even during demonetization, if books are accepted.
An ITAT Delhi ruling has partially allowed appeals by the tax department, reducing significant cash deposit additions and clarifying the applicability of Section 115BBE.
The Delhi ITAT has ruled that while unexplained demonetization cash deposits are taxable, the 60% rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Bangalore deletes a Section 68 addition on a trader’s demonetisation deposits, ruling that cash from business receipts cannot be taxed again after turnover is accepted.
