Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : This guide explains the various assessments under the Income-tax Act, including summary assessment, scrutiny assessment, best judg...
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 : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal C...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to it...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Comm...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices after noting that the Finance Act, 2026 introduced ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an ...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 29/2024-Central Excise rescinds six 2022 excise notifications in the public interest, effective immediately. Deta...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
The core issue was whether the Revenue could make a Section 68 addition when the same share investors and identical facts were previously validated by the ITAT in earlier years. The Delhi ITAT upheld the principle of judicial consistency, confirming the deletion of the full addition and concluding that without new evidence, the genuineness of the share application money stands proven.
The Delhi ITAT ruled that a tax addition based on a vague name in uncorroborated loose papers is invalid without direct evidence linking it to the assessee. The decision emphasizes that suspicion from such dumb documents cannot replace concrete proof in tax assessments.
Where temporary loans received and repaid through banking channels, with identity and creditworthiness of lender proved, the sa,e could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination was invalid.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a charitable trusts tax case, ruling that the AO violated natural justice by making a Rs. 2.24 crore addition based on a third-party search statement without providing the assessee with copies of the statement or documents for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after giving the trust a proper opportunity to contest the evidence.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
The ITAT deleted additions in a search assessment, ruling that the AO couldn’t disallow depreciation or sub-contract expenses solely based on an unverified third-party statement without granting the assessee cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of natural justice and reliance on suspicion cannot replace documentary evidence, such as bank payments and TDS.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
The ITAT invalidated a reassessment order because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make any addition on the sole issue for which the reassessment was initiated (cash deposits). Citing binding precedent, the Tribunal ruled that once the reason to believe ground is not established, the AO loses jurisdiction to make additions on entirely new issues, quashing the entire assessment.
