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 addition was based on a loose paper that did not match Yes Bank loan details or HMA ledger figures. The Tribunal upheld that such uncorroborated papers cannot sustain a 69C addition, especially when business had not yet commenced. The takeaway is that tax additions must be backed by verifiable evidence, not estimations on loose sheets.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
ITAT restored Rs. 20 Cr in unsecured loans, interest, and squared-up loans for fresh verification, noting CIT(A) erred by deleting additions at the stroke of a pen. Large new loans and substantial repayments required independent checks on purpose and creditworthiness. The ruling reinforces that appellate deletion without inquiry violates Rule 46A and legal principles under sections 68 and 69.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
Rajasthan High Court held that discretionary remedy claimed by the petitioner not granted as it is a case which involves fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 100 Crore. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly due to the assessee’s 60% handicap, emphasizing that delay in filing was not deliberate. The case was remanded for merit-based adjudication, ensuring fairness. Key takeaway: disabilities and procedural lapses can justify condoning appeal delays.
Tribunal directs AO to apply the 30% tax rate on unexplained cash deposits during Nov–Dec 2016, citing Madras High Court ruling, partially allowing assessee’s appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment notice issued three years after the relevant AY is invalid if the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, reinforcing the statutory threshold protection.
Court held that an income tax assessment issued after the assessee’s death is null and void, emphasizing the legal heir’s right to contest the order.
