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...
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
ITAT Delhi held that delay of 35 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) ought to be condoned since assessee has explained the sufficient reason for said delay. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit set aside as no additions made in the hands of investors confirms genuineness of investor and hence investment cannot be stated as bogus in hands of company.
During the impugned year, noting the fact that the assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016 of Rs.4,12,67,000/-, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)’s decision to add undisclosed income under Sec 50C in the case of Kavita Samtani Vs DCIT, relating to discrepancies in reported property sale value.
ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remitted the matter since addition confirmed by CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order as assessee didn’t appeared nor complied to the notices. Accordingly, matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in statement of profit & loss account.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
