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 held that once the High Court had already quashed the original assessment for violating the IBC resolution plan, the PCIT’s section 263 revision could not survive. Since a revision must rest on a valid assessment order, the entire 263 action became void. The appeals were allowed and the revision orders were cancelled.
ITAT held that Section 69 cannot apply when the assessee is not proved to own the cash. Unrebutted affidavits established the source, and mere suspicion cannot justify an addition.
Tribunal held that an investment already assessed substantively in another person’s hands cannot again be taxed under Section 69. The case was remanded to avoid double taxation and ensure consistent adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 68 additions cannot apply when a company maintains no books of account, deleting ₹51 lakh and ₹1.25 crore additions. Confirms that technical defaults cannot override proper accounting requirements.
The Tribunal found that the Section 148 notice appeared on the portal after 31.03.2021, raising doubts about its validity. The matter was restored to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit explanations. The ruling underscores strict compliance with notice issuance requirements under Section 148.
Rakesh Arora Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) When the Reason Falls, the Case Falls: Rs. 3.14 Cr Trigger Proves False — ITAT Delhi Quashes Whole 147 The reassessment for AY 2012–13 was triggered solely on the allegation that the assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹3,14,16,000 from M/s Shreyas International. However, at the time of completing […]
The ITAT ruled that failure to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice and disregarding an e-verified return rendered the reassessment void. The addition of ₹50.50 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
ITAT ruled that reopening was bad in law as reasons cited property purchases, while additions related to cash credits—showing no live nexus. The case reaffirms that reassessment must be based on specific, relevant material.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
