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...
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and Excel sheets are unsustainable without independent evidence. It emphasized that denial of cross-examination violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.
ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack evidentiary value. Reopening based on unverified data and denial of cross-examination violates natural justice; entire additions quashed.
Addition under Section 68 could not be sustained where assessee has established the genuineness of a Non-banking financial company (NBFC) investor, and the AO failed to rebut such evidence or trace any money trail linking the assessee to the invested funds.
ITAT held that section 249(4) cannot be invoked where no taxable income arises in India. Appeals must be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds.
ITAT Mumbai holds reassessment invalid where approval under Section 151 was obtained from incorrect authority, ruling defect as jurisdictional and quashing notice under Section 148 and consequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
ITAT confirmed validity of reassessment based on cash deposit information. However, it reduced addition by applying peak credit theory due to withdrawal patterns
The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that ownership and connection must be established through evidence. The decision underscores limits of statutory presumptions under Section 292C.
