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 ITAT held that unrecorded sales cannot be taxed in full under Section 69A. Only the profit element at a reasonable GP rate is assessable as business income.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The case examined whether assessments under Section 153C were valid without proper recording of statutory satisfaction. The Court remanded the matter, holding that jurisdiction must be decided before examining additions on merits.
The appeal was filed late due to ongoing police proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal held this to be sufficient cause and restored the appeal for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
The assessee claimed the firm had dissolved and deposits belonged to a partner. The Tribunal held that absence of documentary proof justified treating bank deposits as unexplained income.
The tribunal examined whether reassessment could be initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction over a non-resident assessee. It held that notices issued by an incorrect authority render the entire reassessment void.
The issue was whether an Assessing Officer can travel beyond limited scrutiny without mandatory approval. The Tribunal held that such action violates binding CBDT Instructions and renders the assessment void from inception
Delhi ITAT held that a bank’s valuation report obtained post-search is not incriminating material, restricting unexplained investment addition to a reasonable estimate.
