Income Tax : The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairne...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified e...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remai...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening....
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
The assessee sought relief citing internal lapses and adviser dependence. The Tribunal ruled that consistent audits and filings undermined claims of ignorance. Long delays require specific, convincing justification, which was absent.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
Rejecting a summary denial of deductions, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify whether mortgage repayments and other costs were wholly connected with the transfer. Taxpayers were directed to cooperate and file complete evidence.
Patna High Court held that ITAT was not justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) without demonstrating any perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard by the appellate authority. Accordingly, deletion of addition u/s. 68 by CIT(A) justified and writ allowed.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated in July 2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. The ruling confirms that expired cases cannot be revived under the post-2021 reassessment framework.
ITAT found the recorded reasons vague and non-specific, failing to even identify the nature of alleged escapement. Such mechanical reasons render the notice under section 148 void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned an extraordinary 2315-day delay, noting that the disallowance arose from a return-filing error and not lack of application of income. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
Whether additions under sections 68 and 69C can be made without seized material. In search cases, completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless incriminating material is found during the search.
