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 issue was whether Section 153C could apply when the assessees own premises were searched. The tribunal held that such a person is a searched person, making Section 153A applicable instead. Consequently, assessments under Section 153C were quashed for multiple years.
Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liability on taxpayers to justify the nature and source of funds.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but deleted addition where advances were supported by evidence.
The issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The Tribunal examined whether demonetisation cash deposits linked to recorded business sales could be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that once the source is established through books, addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
The issue involved additions for alleged cash payments based on third-party data and statements. ITAT deleted the additions, holding that no independent evidence or cross-examination opportunity was provided.
The court held that reassessment notices for A.Y. 2015–16 issued after 1 April 2021 are invalid based on the Revenue’s concession before the Supreme Court. All consequential proceedings were set aside.
