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...
CIT (A) was directed to reassess the long-term capital gain (LTCG) claim as it was found that new evidence submitted by assessee had not been considered during the earlier proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax rate u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable only with effect from 1st April 2017 and not prior to the same. Hence, appeal allowed to that extent.
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of undisclosed cash deposits during demonetization period after observing that assessee has substantiate means of income for depositing cash.
Case was reopened after recording proper reason. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022, wherein addition of Rs.1 Crore was made in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property.
Assessee was a medical professional, filed his returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appeal concerned an addition of over Rs. 179 crore made by AO under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s hands.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
Assessee had filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring ₹20,89,430. The case was scrutinized for capital gains from agricultural land sales and cash deposits during demonetization.
The assessee was engaged in the business of providing works contract service and labour service. AO found that assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.62,10,000/- in the bank account during demonetization period.
Both the revenue authorities have accepted the books of accounts, book results could not be disturbed once it is admitted that cash sales are recorded in books and forming part of turnover of the business.
