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 : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
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 : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
The ruling emphasizes that statements relied upon by the Revenue must be confronted to the assessee with an opportunity of cross-examination. Failure to do so renders additions legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that no construction investment occurred during the year under appeal. Accordingly, no addition for unexplained investment could be sustained in that assessment year.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The case examined additions made in Section 153C assessments based on third-party search material. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot stand unless incriminating documents are furnished to the assessee.
The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without furnishing recorded reasons despite a taxpayers request. The Tribunal held that failure to supply reasons is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates reassessment.
The issue was whether a recorded share investment can be treated as unexplained under Section 69. The Tribunal held that once an investment is recorded in the books and its source is not doubted, Section 69 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond six years is invalid without a recorded satisfaction of undisclosed assets exceeding ₹50 lakh. The takeaway is strict compliance with the fourth proviso to section 153A is mandatory.
The penalty was levied solely on the basis of an alleged unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the quantum addition was fully deleted, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty automatically collapses.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
