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 issue was whether a seized loose paper alone can justify an on-money addition under section 69. ITAT held that without independent corroboration, such addition cannot be sustained.
Although the Revenue followed the new reassessment procedure, the notice was issued beyond the allowable time. The Tribunal set aside the reassessment as void ab initio.
The tribunal held that refusal to condone delay defeats substantial justice when reasonable cause exists. Delay was directed to be condoned and appeal heard on merits.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable where title, possession, and identity of land are seriously disputed. In such cases, the proper remedy is a suit for possession or declaration, not injunction alone.
The issue was whether an appeal involving large additions could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that technical dismissal was improper and ordered remand with costs. Key takeaway: meritorious matters should be decided on merits, not limitation alone.
The Tribunal examined whether website development charges were genuine business expenses. It upheld the disallowance after finding the vendor to be a non-existent entity and services to be unproven.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69 cannot exceed the amount actually invested during the relevant year. Where most payments were loan-funded, only the year-specific payment required examination.
The case examined whether an appellate authority could set aside an ex-parte reassessment. The tribunal held that the amended proviso to section 251(1)(a) expressly allows such remand to ensure assessment on merits.
The Tribunal found that additions for securities transactions may overlap with amounts already accepted by the tax authority. The matter was remitted to the AO for factual verification before sustaining any addition.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
