Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited ...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Goods and Services Tax : GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to belie...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : Cash deposits arising from routine business collections cannot be wholly treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that e...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to th...
Income Tax : The High Court held that an addition for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement. The ke...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years was valid without approval from the correct authority. ITAT held the notice ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether cash and cheque payments could be taxed as unexplained investment in AY 2013–14. The Tribunal held that th...
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
ITAT ruled that reopening was bad in law as reasons cited property purchases, while additions related to cash credits—showing no live nexus. The case reaffirms that reassessment must be based on specific, relevant material.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
Tribunal held that additions made solely on ex-parte proceedings cannot stand when the taxpayer was unable to comply due to age-related limitations. The case was remanded for fresh assessment with a direction to provide proper opportunity.
ITAT held that reassessment notices under sections 147/148 were invalid as the reasons were vague and lacked tangible evidence. Reopening cannot be used merely to verify or scrutinize transactions without proper justification.
ITAT held that additions based on an unsigned, unverified Excel sheet from a third party lacked evidentiary value. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee provided independent evidence disproving alleged on-money payments.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim under Section 44AD, recognizing the small kirana shop’s sales and deposits as genuine business income. Bank deposits corresponded with daily sales, and withdrawals matched purchase requirements, showing a consistent business pattern.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to reassess ULIP maturity receipts treated as unexplained investment after the exemption claim was not evaluated earlier.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
