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 : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
Patna High Court grants bail to an accused in an alleged ₹33 crore GST invoice scam, citing lack of proper evidence for arrest.
To ensure fairness, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This decision was made contingent upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department within one month and providing proof of payment.
The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain Abbas (on behalf of the HNGC Builders and Developers).
ITAT Jodhpur partly allows appeal in Kishana Ram vs ITO, upholding additions related to capital discrepancies and agricultural income under Section 143(3).
ITAT Raipur held that change in method of depreciation can be reason for difference in closing stock of plant and machinery in previous year vis-à-vis opening stock in current year and the same needs further examination, hence matter restored back.
Surat ITAT partly allows Jayeshbhai Chovatiya’s appeal against unexplained bank credits addition and upholds part of AO’s assessment.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards cash deposited during demonization period partly set aside based on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that cash sales of liquor is the source of cash deposit during demonetization and accordingly, since the nature and source of investment fully explained by the assessee, addition u/s. 69 of 69A not justifiable.
There are absolutely no credible and reliable evidences to establish that entire loans in cash were from the undisclosed funds whereas loan in cheques were accepted to be that of person other assessee and his role as a conduit or a mere intermediary was established.
Karnataka High Court held that during re-assessment proceedings, claim for Input Tax Credit can be rectified under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, even when the same is disadvantageous to the State Exchequer.
