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 reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in the DRP’s order could not justify sustaining a ₹10 lakh addition. It held that the Assessing Officer should have implemented the DRP’s directions in substance and deleted the entire addition.
Smt. Pavithra Sugichandran Vs Office of the DCIT (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court considered six writ petitions challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2020-21. The petitioner’s husband, a director of Gateway Office Parks Limited (GOPL), faced allegations of siphoning company funds, leading to a search and seizure operation. Materials allegedly […]
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without examining whether the source of the assessee’s cash payments had been explained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed, making examination of the additions unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned loose paper containing only jottings could not justify an addition without corroborative evidence. The addition of alleged interest income was therefore deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire financial year without corroborative material. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the profit element for a three-month period.
Tribunal observed that it is for the businessman to decide how to organise business finances unless there is evidence of tax evasion. It deleted the Section 68 addition after finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds.
ITAT Delhi held that merely reflecting depreciation in an incorrect schedule of the income tax return could not justify an addition under Section 69. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely filing an income tax return does not amount to retracting a statement recorded under Section 132(4). It upheld the restoration of the Rs.1.5 crore addition after finding the alleged retraction to be belated.
