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 set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
Reopening notice under Section 148 was held invalid as the AO ignored co-purchasers’ contributions and granted mechanical approval under Section 151 without application of mind. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment and associated additions null and void.
Gauhati High Court held that arrest in fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC] cannot be termed as illegal since the arresting authority has complied with all the mandates provided by the CGST Act, 2017 and the BNSS, 2023.
The Tribunal held that the ₹2.5 Cr flat investment was fully explained through agreement details and a DHFL housing loan, leaving no basis for an addition. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remanded for fresh examination since the foundation for concealment no longer survived.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident investments sourced from foreign salary cannot be treated as unexplained income, deleting ₹2 crore addition under Section 69.
The assessee showed that the ₹1.11 crore payment was an advance toward a bank-auctioned property, fully supported by bank transfers and later formalised via a registered deed. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot attract section 69. The addition was therefore deleted.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
Assessments relying on third-party search material were struck down due to non-recording of satisfaction by AOs of both the searched party and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed that 153A applies only to searches on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that unverified WhatsApp chats without Section 65B certification cannot justify additions under Section 69A. Key takeaway: digital messages must be authenticated and corroborated before being used against taxpayers.
The AO reopened the assessment relying on external investigation without verifying facts, misclassifying the advance as unexplained income. Tribunal dismissed Revenue appeal and confirmed CIT(A) order.
