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...
Tribunal restored issue of validity of reassessment under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that assessee raised legal ground for first time before ITAT.
Dismissing Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee’s ₹1.9 crore FDR was a renewal of an earlier deposit used as bank guarantee security and not a new unexplained investment under Section 69.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
ITAT Rajkot held that a one-day delay in filing objections before the DRP should not defeat justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that natural justice must prevail over technical lapses.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
ITAT Indore deleted a ₹2 lakh addition for cash deposited during demonetisation, citing CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 which bars verification for deposits up to ₹2.5 lakhs by individuals.
ITAT Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained credit since the same is made out of cash sales. Accordingly, addition merely on suspicion, doubt, conjecture and guess work cannot be sustained.
