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 reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. It emphasized the absence of independent evidence and upheld the taxpayers denial of cash payments.
The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling that failure to produce bills, vouchers, and stock records justified estimation.
The issue involved taxing property value as unexplained investment without prior notice. The Court held that absence of a show cause notice under Section 69 violated principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of the order.
Bombay High Court held that import of cosmetic goods without Central Drugs Standard Control Organization license are considered prohibited goods hence the same are liable to be confiscated even if the same were meant for re-export.
ITAT held that entire receipts cannot be treated as unexplained when income is already offered to tax. Only unverifiable expenses can be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that tenancy supported by rent receipts, bills, and agreements cannot be treated as a sham. It upheld exemption under Section 54F on surrender of tenancy rights.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on third-party Excel sheets and statements. It ruled that absence of independent evidence and denial of cross-examination renders such additions invalid.
ITAT remanded the matter where the assessee claimed PAN misuse leading to additions under Sections 68 and 69. It directed AO to verify the police report, holding that relief must be granted if misuse is substantiated.
