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 confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment as unexplained is unjustified. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal clarified that even where the assessee owns more than ten trucks, Section 44AE can be used as a fair yardstick for income estimation. Arbitrary assessment and multiple additions were set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect computation of opening and closing stock during survey cannot justify full addition. Only the reconciled excess stock amount already offered to tax was sustained.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data without independent corroboration or cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that without any incriminating material belonging to the assessee found during search, proceedings under Section 153C are invalid. Addition based solely on third-party statements was set aside.
ITAT ruled that a 76/23 split in chats reflected proposed refurbishment costs, not undisclosed cash consideration. In absence of corroborative material, addition under Sections 69 and 115BBE was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal restored the matter after finding that the appellate authority failed to decide the assessees grounds on merits. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all documents.
Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act was only a step in the process of inquiry. Mere issuance of summons could not be equated with arrest or initiation of recovery proceedings.
The ITAT ruled that once the assessee establishes the source of investment, addition for unexplained investment cannot survive. Direct payment by a financier through demand draft explained the transaction.
