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 Ranchi quashes orders applying the 60% tax rate of Section 115BBE to A.Y. 2017-18, clarifying the amendment is effective from A.Y. 2018-19.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be added as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since sufficient explanation of source of cash deposit provided by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since the cash deposit is already added while filing the return of income under the head other sources. Accordingly, addition set aside and appeal allowed.
An analysis of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, which imposes a high flat tax on unexplained income, and its potential conflicts with constitutional rights related to equality, trade, and retrospective penalties.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were properly explained and recorded, therefore, addition made under section 69A of ₹17,16,000 and taxed under section 115BBE was not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad sends unexplained demonetization cash deposit case back to AO, granting assessee new chance to explain source after ex-parte order.
ITAT Mumbai overturns dismissal of appeals for Rajesh Babulal Shah, citing Supreme Court’s ‘Katiji’ ruling on condonation of delay and remanding cases.
ITAT Jaipur upholds CIT(A)’s order deleting ₹80 lakh addition under Section 68; holds share sale genuine and not accommodation entry.
ITAT Kolkata confirms ₹31.15 lakh loan repayment is not unexplained cash credit, upholding deletion of addition for New Charan Kanwal Finance.
