Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
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 held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : A doctrinal analysis of unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditure under Sections 68–69D. Explains burden of proof a...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a registered sale deed without corroborative evidence is not incriminating material and cannot support additions in...
Income Tax : ITAT held that multiplying a seized figure without supporting evidence was unjustified and restricted the Section 69 addition to t...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that proceedings initiated under the old Section 153C framework after the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were leg...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that omission to mention the exact charging provision did not vitiate the assessment where unexplained cash and bull...
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and earlier acquisition of foreign investments.
ITAT held that a registered sale deed without corroborative evidence is not incriminating material and cannot support additions in Section 153A proceedings.
ITAT held that multiplying a seized figure without supporting evidence was unjustified and restricted the Section 69 addition to the actual amount recorded.
Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Group and covered Assessment Years (AYs) 2020-21 to 2023-24. Although several legal grounds were initially raised, the assessees did not press those grounds during the hearing. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, confined itself to deciding […]
The Tribunal ruled that proceedings initiated under the old Section 153C framework after the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were legally unsustainable. It set aside all assessment orders for want of jurisdiction.
Tribunal held that omission to mention the exact charging provision did not vitiate the assessment where unexplained cash and bullion were clearly established. Relief was granted only for the cash supported by contemporaneous records.
ITAT Delhi held that the CIT(A) validly remanded a best judgment reassessment after repeated non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) empowered the appellate authority to order a fresh reassessment.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking action on an alleged tax evasion complaint, holding that no case for issuing a writ of mandamus was made out at that stage. It found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order.
The ITAT Ahmedabad admitted additional evidence relating to foreign remittances and restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication. It held that the documents were necessary for proper determination of the issues.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that unexplained investment under Section 69 can be taxed only in the year the investment is actually made. Since the property payments were made in an earlier financial year, the additions for A.Y. 2016-17 were deleted.
