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...
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to pass a reasoned order under Section 250(6) and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting AO’s additions on depreciation, excess stock, and gross profit, confirming machinery was in use and books were reliable.
ITAT Chennai struck down a protective addition of ₹14.91 Cr made u/s 69, citing invalid u/s 153C jurisdiction. No substantive assessment existed in the companies’ hands for AY 2014-15, reinforcing that protective additions require year-wise satisfaction and corroborative evidence.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
ITAT Mumbai condoned 75-day delay in filing appeal, recognizing assessee’s illiteracy and reliance on tax consultant, allowing fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte dismissal of the AY 2018-19 appeal, restoring the matter to CIT(A) for merits-based hearing. The assessee was allowed to present evidence regarding ₹3.74 crore unexplained investment and estimated profits.
Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited oversight over critical digital systems.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed when no undisclosed income is found during search operations. Loose documents alone do not justify penalty.
