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 issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. Revenue cannot levy additions where investments are legitimate and documented.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third parties, violating natural justice. Suspicion alone cannot justify tax additions.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
ITAT Agra held that additional evidence proving the land’s distance from municipal limits is crucial for reassessment under Section 56(2)(vii). The case was remanded to AO for de novo verification, allowing the assessee to file further supporting documents.
Delhi High Court ruled that prosecution under Income Tax Act Sections 276C and 278E can proceed when evaded tax exceeds Rs.25 crores, even if appeals are pending, confirming proper authority delegation.
The addition was based on a loose paper that did not match Yes Bank loan details or HMA ledger figures. The Tribunal upheld that such uncorroborated papers cannot sustain a 69C addition, especially when business had not yet commenced. The takeaway is that tax additions must be backed by verifiable evidence, not estimations on loose sheets.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
ITAT restored Rs. 20 Cr in unsecured loans, interest, and squared-up loans for fresh verification, noting CIT(A) erred by deleting additions at the stroke of a pen. Large new loans and substantial repayments required independent checks on purpose and creditworthiness. The ruling reinforces that appellate deletion without inquiry violates Rule 46A and legal principles under sections 68 and 69.
