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...
The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceedings for unauthorized construction. The Tribunal accepted the actual purchase price as fair market value and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that agricultural land situated beyond notified municipal limits is not a capital asset under the Income Tax Act. It deleted the entire capital gains addition arising from sale of such land.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no unexplained investment addition could survive where the booked property deal was cancelled and funds were refunded. The ruling emphasized verification of actual payment flow and subsequent cancellation events.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271AAC cannot survive once the underlying Section 153C assessment is quashed. The Tribunal deleted the penalty after noting that the quantum assessment itself no longer existed.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the department failed to obtain the prescribed approval, the assessment was quashed as invalid in law.
The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as unexplained income under Section 68. The Tribunal found the transactions to be part of a pre-arranged accommodation entry scheme.
The Bangalore ITAT held that genuine business sales recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely because payment was received in Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation. The Tribunal deleted the ₹29.27 lakh addition under Section 68.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement forms the basis of the assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reliance on such untested statements violates principles of natural justice and renders the addition legally unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
