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 Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify addition under Section 68. The Tribunal directed limited verification of subsequent payment before deciding the taxability issue conclusively.
The Tribunal held that differences between customs assessable value and invoice value cannot automatically justify additions under Section 69C. The ruling clarifies that actual unexplained expenditure must first be proved by the Revenue.
Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by prior bank withdrawals. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must prove cash was spent elsewhere before invoking Section 69A.
Pune ITAT observed that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years may not be maintainable where the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The matter was remanded for verification of jurisdictional facts and statutory notices.
Mumbai ITAT restored appeals dismissed for 179-day delay after observing that the assessee had relied bona fide on his Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal granted another opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify bank statements, credit card records, and company ledger accounts before making the addition under Section 68. The matter was restored for fresh examination and reconciliation of records.
The Tribunal held that revisionary powers cannot be used to substitute the AO’s view with that of the Pr. CIT. It emphasized that such substitution is beyond Section 263. The decision protects independent assessment decisions.
The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) permits only correction of apparent errors, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s application.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains cannot be disallowed solely on investigation reports and assumptions. It found that documentary evidence and investment history supported genuineness, leading to deletion of additions under Section 68.
