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 ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
Rajasthan High Court held that discretionary remedy claimed by the petitioner not granted as it is a case which involves fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 100 Crore. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly due to the assessee’s 60% handicap, emphasizing that delay in filing was not deliberate. The case was remanded for merit-based adjudication, ensuring fairness. Key takeaway: disabilities and procedural lapses can justify condoning appeal delays.
Tribunal directs AO to apply the 30% tax rate on unexplained cash deposits during Nov–Dec 2016, citing Madras High Court ruling, partially allowing assessee’s appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment notice issued three years after the relevant AY is invalid if the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, reinforcing the statutory threshold protection.
Court held that an income tax assessment issued after the assessee’s death is null and void, emphasizing the legal heir’s right to contest the order.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
The Income Tax authorities treated LTCG from Kappac Pharma shares as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal confirmed the transactions were genuine, supported by demat and broker records. The addition under Section 68 and related commission expenses were deleted.
ITAT held that cash deposits made by directors before investing in share capital cannot be treated as unexplained income of the company. The ruling emphasizes that proper identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness documentation must be evaluated before invoking Section 68.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment cannot be added without confronting the assessee with the Koinex transaction data relied upon by the AO. Matter remanded for fresh verification.
