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 examined whether gold jewellery seized during police interception could be taxed as unexplained solely based on a statement recorded under enquiry. It held that additions fail where later evidence shows the assessment relied on weak corroboration and inconsistent reasoning.
The appeals were rejected without examining additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that appellate remedies cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities and restored the cases.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Central Circle Cannot Assume Reassessment Powers — Section 148 Notice Issued Outside Faceless Regime Held Void The Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment framed under Section 147 and consequential penalties under Sections 270A and 271AAC in the case of Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi v. ACIT, holding that […]
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
No incriminating material showed payment over the registered consideration. The tribunal held that without independent evidence, the ₹1.52 Cr addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide delay caused by genuine circumstances deserves condonation. The key takeaway is that technical limitation cannot override substantive justice.
The issue concerned massive additions made in an ex-parte assessment due to alleged unexplained share transactions. The Tribunal held that such issues require proper factual verification and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that additions for alleged cash payments cannot survive when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. Absence of corroboration and denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Chennai held a reassessment notice under section 148 invalid as it was issued after the statutory limitation expired, emphasizing strict compliance with time limits.
