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...
GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to believe and adherence to Article 22 safeguards, with most offenses being non-cognizable and bailable.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed an appeal, restricting a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit addition to 1 lakh after the assessee, a salaried individual, explained the source as family savings from disclosed income. The Tribunal used a reasonable estimate approach, finding neither the assessee’s full explanation nor the Revenue’s complete rejection of evidence to be fully warranted, granting Rs. 9 lakh relief.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
The Tribunal set aside the PCIT’s revision of a scrutiny assessment, ruling the action invalid because the Assessing Officer’s view on critical items like creditors and PF/ESI payments was already plausible and reasoned. Introducing new issues not covered in the show-cause notice constituted an exercise of jurisdiction beyond the permissible scope of Section 263.
The ITAT restored the assessee’s appeal, condoning the delay because the NFAC sent crucial communications to a wrong email, thus depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The ruling confirms that the entire appellate proceeding becomes non-est if service of notice is flawed, and the matter must be decided afresh on its merits.
An assessment reopened to tax alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) was declared void ab initio by the ITAT, strictly applying Section 151. The Tribunal held that statutory sanction cannot be bypassed or taken from a non-competent authority, even following the Ashish Agarwal directions, making the entire reassessment jurisdictionally flawed.
This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a major protective tax addition against a firm, ruling it would result in double taxation. Evidence proved the corresponding income, found on seized loose papers, was personal to a partner and had already been declared and taxed in the partner’s individual return.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
ITAT Ahmedabad restores the Rs. 41.02 lakh unexplained deposits case to the AO for de-novo assessment, allowing additional evidence and citing the assessee’s illiteracy.
