Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore Section 68 of the Income Tax Act with our comprehensive guide on cash credits. Learn about its purpose, scope, and legal f...
Income Tax : Discover simplified taxation scheme under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act. Learn eligibility criteria, exemptions, and key insights...
Income Tax : Unlock the intricacies of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, unraveling the nuances of unexplained cash credits. Delve into its ame...
Income Tax : Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) If the explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit is not controverted, no addit...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : Explore the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order where Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. successfully challenges a ₹3 Cr addit...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Kolkata order in Keshav Shroff Vs ITO (AY 2016-17). Analysis shows why mere suspicion isn't enough ...
Income Tax : Read ITAT Kolkata's full text order on Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO. Learn why old loans converted into share allotment were dee...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
AO without bringing any material or reasons before making any addition, simply added back the opening balances of the trade payables without making any verification from the parties and he had failed to discharge the preliminary onus and had made the addition in summary manners, therefore, CIT(A) had committed no error in deleting the addition made u/s 41.
A recent ITAT Mumbai ruling in Mehboob Amirali Kamdar vs. ITO demonstrates that the absence of actual money receipt and an accounting mistake can prevent a Section 68 addition.
Nayagi Fireworks Ltd. vs. ACIT case, where cash deposits of Rs. 99.50 Lacs were disputed and ITAT provides an opportunity to substantiate source.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
In the Archana Rajendra Malu vs. ITO case, ITAT Pune upheld the denial of tax exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act due to sham transactions with paper companies.
In the Sonam Rajesh Rateria vs. ITO case, ITAT orders re-adjudication due to non-consideration of the Assessee’s unsigned reply to a notice under section 147.
In the case of J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITAT Delhi removes Income Tax addition under section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization, citing no abnormal sales.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as Assessing Officer duly carried out all the inquiry before passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong and irrelevant facts recorded under the reasons recorded for the formation of belief of escapement of income chargeable to income tax is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
In a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
