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 Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed source of income cannot be sustained merely because this amount is not reported in Tax Audit Report since transaction is duly recorded in books of accounts.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition made by application of provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act justifiable since SRO rates rightly adopted in absence of any objection from assessee company.
Mumbai ITAT quashes ₹1.76 Cr unexplained investment tax on NRI homemaker, ruling joint registration doesn’t justify addition when funds came solely from husband.
Bangalore ITAT deletes unexplained cash addition of Rs.2 lakhs for a student assessee, ruling the scrutiny itself violated CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, which exempts individuals without business income from verification for deposits up to Rs.2.5 lakhs.
A summary of ITAT Chennai’s order in Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO, which sustained both unexplained investment under Section 69 and professional receipts found via Form 26AS but not declared in income tax return.
The ITAT Mumbai has set aside a tax order, remanding the ₹1.1 crore unexplained property investment case of Rajesh Laxmichand Jain back to the Assessing Officer for fresh review, citing procedural errors.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai dismisses the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the deletion of a ₹80 lakh unexplained investment addition.
ITAT Kolkata deleted the ₹1.31 lakh unexplained cash addition during demonetisation, ruling the deposit was reasonably sourced from the assessee’s disclosed rental income received in cash.
Ahmedabad ITAT overturns a tax disallowance of Rs. 6.78 lakh in cash deposits, accepting a farmer’s claim of income from agriculture, transportation, and family savings.
Somabhai Mohandas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The case of Somabhai Mohandas Patel vs. ITO before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad involved an appeal by a taxpayer, Somabhai Mohandas Patel, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upholding the addition of ₹10,33,012 to his income. This addition was made […]
