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 : 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 : The Tribunal held that alleged on-money addition based solely on third-party loose papers is unsustainable. In absence of independ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 wa...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Excel sheets recovered from a third party cannot justify addition without direct evidence linking the assessee. In ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal clarified that even where the assessee owns more than ten trucks, Section 44AE can be used as a fair yardstick for in...
The tribunal held that invoking Section 115BBE on survey-related excess stock was legally unsustainable for AY 2015-16. The addition was therefore liable to be taxed at normal rates.
ITAT Bangalore directs reassessment with full hearing for an agriculturist after procedural lapses in notices and missed hearings. The ruling emphasizes the importance of fair opportunity under Sections 148 and 144B.
Cash deposits were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
The Tribunal ruled that increasing assessed income without issuing a notice under section 251 violates natural justice. The case was remanded as ex-parte enhancement beyond the original addition was found legally unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore invalidated a reassessment where the assessee was not provided the recorded reasons, emphasizing that reopening notices must be supported by clear, communicated reasons before filing returns.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
The issue was whether an ex-parte reassessment for unexplained cash deposits could stand despite total non-compliance. The ITAT held that substantive justice required one final opportunity and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making the reassessment unsustainable.
