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 held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
The ITAT Raipur held that the assessee had already disclosed the sale of the old car in the return of income and paid tax on the profit from the transaction. Since the sale consideration and profit were recorded and taxed, the Tribunal noted that there was no loss to the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT s ruling that assessment orders were invalid because the approving authority granted Section 153D approval mechanically without examining the records.
The issue was whether the entire bank deposits could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69. The tribunal held that deposits linked to business activity cannot be fully taxed and directed estimation of profit at 8%.
The Tribunal held that entire bank deposits cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Instead, where deposits relate to commission-based transactions, only a reasonable profit percentage (2% of deposits) should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits recorded in regular books of account cannot be treated as unexplained investments under section 69. Since the books were not rejected and no contrary evidence was produced, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT Chennai held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Additions based only on special audit findings were therefore quashed.
