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...
Assessee challenged CIT(A) order before the Bangalore Bench of ITAT arguing that 1450 grams of gold should not be considered unexplained as it fell within the permissible limits of CBDT Instruction No. 1916.
Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that if the AO’s view is legally permissible, even if it results in a lower tax liability, the revisional authority cannot invoke Section 263 simply because it disagrees with the AO’s approach.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that PCIT has taken divergent view from that of AO without giving the basis for invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order passed by PCIT u/s. 263 not justifiable.
ITAT Bangalore deleted addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money after examining the cash withdrawn and cash deposit amounts, since cash withdrawn is more than cash deposit.
PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order and compute correct taxable income by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being aggrieved against the revision order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
It was held that assessee to provide concrete evidence establishing the genuineness of the cash deposits in accordance with CBDT Circular wherein the various instructions had been issued by CBDT dated 21.2.2017, 3.3.2017, 15.11.2017 & 9.8.2019.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
ITAT Ahmedabad grants stay of tax recovery in Siddhi Parag Patel vs ITO case. The dispute centers on unexplained land investments and tax demand revisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
