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 held that foreign investments disclosed in Schedule FA and backed by sufficient income cannot be treated as unexplained. Mechanical application of section 69 was rejected.
ITAT restored the case to the Assessing Officer to examine jurisdictional defects, evidence, and applicability of section 115BBE. Technical dismissal by the appellate authority was set aside.
The case addressed whether recorded purchases of ₹4.55 crore could still be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that without evidence of off-book investments, section 69 has no application.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte citing non-prosecution. ITAT Delhi held that mere issuance of notices does not satisfy the requirement of effective hearing. The order was quashed and the matter sent back for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. Revenue cannot levy additions where investments are legitimate and documented.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third parties, violating natural justice. Suspicion alone cannot justify tax additions.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
ITAT Agra held that additional evidence proving the land’s distance from municipal limits is crucial for reassessment under Section 56(2)(vii). The case was remanded to AO for de novo verification, allowing the assessee to file further supporting documents.
Delhi High Court ruled that prosecution under Income Tax Act Sections 276C and 278E can proceed when evaded tax exceeds Rs.25 crores, even if appeals are pending, confirming proper authority delegation.
