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 towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
The ITAT ruled that additions under Section 69 based solely on third-party statements and unverified documents cannot stand. Key takeaway: credible, corroborated evidence is essential for tax assessments.
The Tribunal held that substantial bank deposits without filing a return provided adequate basis to reopen under section 147. Notice-service objections failed due to section 292BB, and the quantum issue was remanded for verification. The ruling confirms that prima facie material is sufficient for reassessment.
ITAT upholds deletion of Section 69 addition after remand verification showed property purchases were recorded as business stock. Ruling highlights that properly accounted stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as unexplained investment.
The Tribunal set aside a service tax demand against a mandap keeper, ruling that a photocopied invoice and presumptions cannot justify tax liability.
Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE deposit sources under Section 69.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
Court held that the order confirming fraudulent ITC and penalties is appealable under Section 107, granting petitioner time to file an appeal by December 2025.
ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi remitted a case where CIT(A) upheld additions without examining available evidence. The ruling reinforces that authorities must fully consider documents and explanations before confirming unexplained investments.
