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 Section 69 addition on alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and unverified pen drive data lack evidentiary value without corroboration or cross-examination, upholding natural justice.
ITAT allowed additional evidence filed by the legal heir and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The key takeaway is that justice requires giving opportunity where evidence was earlier unavailable.
ITAT Mumbai held delay and ex-parte orders cannot override justice. ₹64.8 lakh addition u/s 69 set aside; case remanded for fresh examination, giving assessee opportunity to submit evidence.
ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid. The burden of proof lies on the department.
Karnataka High Court sets aside ₹45 lakh Sec 69 addition, remands to ITAT to consider fresh evidence on property transaction and refund; holds explanation must be examined even at later stage.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot examine issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without approval. Since total deposits were assessed instead of only demonetization deposits, the addition was invalid and deleted.
The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assumptions cannot replace evidence. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary additions.
The Tribunal held that strict correlation between withdrawals and deposits is not required under Section 69. It ruled that reasonable cash availability and explanation based on probabilities is sufficient.
The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 days violates mandatory provisions, rendering the notice and entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
The issue was whether protective addition can survive when income is already taxed elsewhere. ITAT held that once income attains finality in another assessee’s case, protective addition cannot be sustained.
