Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Goods and Services Tax : GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to belie...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Goods and Services Tax : Understanding GST prosecution in India: Offenses, arrest powers, mens rea, tax liability, judicial precedents, and the process of ...
Service Tax : The Tribunal set aside a service tax demand against a mandap keeper, ruling that a photocopied invoice and presumptions cannot jus...
Income Tax : Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE de...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for f...
Goods and Services Tax : Court held that the order confirming fraudulent ITC and penalties is appealable under Section 107, granting petitioner time to fil...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addi...
ITAT Rajkot held that a one-day delay in filing objections before the DRP should not defeat justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that natural justice must prevail over technical lapses.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
ITAT Indore deleted a ₹2 lakh addition for cash deposited during demonetisation, citing CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 which bars verification for deposits up to ₹2.5 lakhs by individuals.
Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, documentation, and TDS/TCS compliance with prescribed penalty amounts.
ITAT Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained credit since the same is made out of cash sales. Accordingly, addition merely on suspicion, doubt, conjecture and guess work cannot be sustained.
GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to believe and adherence to Article 22 safeguards, with most offenses being non-cognizable and bailable.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed an appeal, restricting a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit addition to 1 lakh after the assessee, a salaried individual, explained the source as family savings from disclosed income. The Tribunal used a reasonable estimate approach, finding neither the assessee’s full explanation nor the Revenue’s complete rejection of evidence to be fully warranted, granting Rs. 9 lakh relief.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
