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 Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69 cannot exceed the amount actually invested during the relevant year. Where most payments were loan-funded, only the year-specific payment required examination.
The case examined whether an appellate authority could set aside an ex-parte reassessment. The tribunal held that the amended proviso to section 251(1)(a) expressly allows such remand to ensure assessment on merits.
The Tribunal found that additions for securities transactions may overlap with amounts already accepted by the tax authority. The matter was remitted to the AO for factual verification before sustaining any addition.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
The Tribunal ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied retrospectively for demonetisation-period transactions. As the tax effect at normal rates fell below the monetary limit, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The addition was based on suspicion arising from third-party misconduct. The Tribunal reiterated that income tax additions cannot rest on presumptions alone.
The Tribunal examined whether a third-party seized document could be ignored as a dumb document. It held that once cheque entries in the same document matched recorded transactions, related cash entries could not be disbelieved and addition under section 69C was justified.
The Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority lacks power to dismiss appeals solely for non-prosecution. Appeals must be decided on merits with reasoned findings.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on third-party search material without corroboration is unsustainable. With payments proved through banking channels, the cash allegation failed.
Applying the test of human probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that unexplained abnormal sales could not be fully accepted. At the same time, absence of book defects warranted estimation instead of outright section 68 taxation.
