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 : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceeding...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were prope...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment addit...
Applying a liberal approach, the tribunal condoned delay in appeal filing and examined the jurisdictional defect. Since reopening was initiated by the wrong authority, the assessment could not survive.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that once an appeal is rejected as time-barred, the appellate authority cannot adjudicate it on merits. A contradictory approach violates jurisdictional discipline and warrants remand.
The Tribunal deleted on-money additions where the tax department failed to establish a clear nexus between the assessee and alleged cash entries. Suspicion or unverified third-party material was held insufficient in law.
The issue was whether reopening could be done when a jointly owned property exceeds ₹50 lakh in total value. The Tribunal held that only the assessee’s share counts; if it is below ₹50 lakh, reopening beyond three years is without jurisdiction.
The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited from recorded demonetisation-period sales cannot be treated as unexplained when books and VAT turnover are accepted. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 69A additions.
Delhi High Court held that summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act], is issued for gathering information and providing an opportunity to produce documents, it cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, writ dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and undated draft agreement seized from a third party cannot justify an addition for unexplained investment without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey, when arising from regular business activity and disclosed in accounts, cannot be taxed as unexplained investment under Section 69B.
