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 addition under Section 69 was remanded as the assessee claimed the source through rotation of funds. The Assessing Officer must now verify the fund flow after granting proper hearing.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained merely on investigation wing inputs. It held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved with documents, additions under Section 68 cannot survive.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions based solely on a DVO report are invalid when books are not rejected and the report is not confronted to the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh verification following natural justice.
The ruling clarifies that additions for unexplained investments cannot survive where credible evidence on source is later produced. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine bank records and property sale proceeds.
The issue was whether a seized loose paper alone can justify an on-money addition under section 69. ITAT held that without independent corroboration, such addition cannot be sustained.
Although the Revenue followed the new reassessment procedure, the notice was issued beyond the allowable time. The Tribunal set aside the reassessment as void ab initio.
The tribunal held that refusal to condone delay defeats substantial justice when reasonable cause exists. Delay was directed to be condoned and appeal heard on merits.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable where title, possession, and identity of land are seriously disputed. In such cases, the proper remedy is a suit for possession or declaration, not injunction alone.
The issue was whether an appeal involving large additions could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that technical dismissal was improper and ordered remand with costs. Key takeaway: meritorious matters should be decided on merits, not limitation alone.
The Tribunal examined whether website development charges were genuine business expenses. It upheld the disallowance after finding the vendor to be a non-existent entity and services to be unproven.
