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 Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not considered the stamp duty valuation of the property on the date of agreement, which was in 2015. As per the proviso to the section, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should have been taken into account.
ITAT Chandigarh held that excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act as the same is undeclared business income and not unexplained investment.
Bangalore ITAT’s ruling on cash deposits during demonetization raises questions on verification methods. Learn about the case between ITO and Shri Chatrapati Shivaji.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition invoking the deeming provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unjustified as nature and source of undisclosed income/ investment duly explained by the assessee.
New Delhi ITAT rules that no addition can be made under Sec 69 if the difference in stock found during survey and recorded in books is reconciled. Detailed analysis of Ultimate Creations Vs ACIT.
In Bharat Agro Industries Vs DCIT, New Delhi ITAT questions the logic of treating sales as bogus when purchases are genuine and stock is accepted.
Once an appeal is lodged with CIT(A), the PCIT’s authority to revise assessment under Section 263 is circumscribed – Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Hyderabad orders fresh examination of Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers’ cash deposits and sales during demonetization, highlighting the importance of documentation.
In the landmark Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita vs. ACIT case, ITAT Bangalore held additions under Section 68 need examination of cash deposit source.
Ahmedabad ITAT allows Amikrupa Education Trust’s appeal, ruling cash deposits during demonetization with explained sources not taxable under Section 69A.
