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...
ITAT Ahmedabad remands case due to incorrect notice delivery, allowing reassessment of unexplained deposits and income under natural justice principles.
ITAT Chennai remands case for fresh assessment, allowing Ramesh Sreenivasalu to submit documents on demonetization cash deposits. Assessee fined Rs. 20,000.
ITAT, by going through established precedents, held that AO had not recorded any dissatisfaction with assessee’s voluntary disallowance, nor had he provided any basis for invoking Rule 8D
Learn how the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to the AO’s misapplication of law in taxing Stamp Duty Valuation and Unexplained Investment. Explore detailed analysis of Section 56(2)(x), Section 69, and key judicial precedents.
ITAT Indore partly allows Saaras Agro’s appeal, ruling on Section 69 and 115BBE additions. Key judicial precedents and CBDT circulars cited.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implications on tax assessments.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai overturns AO’s Rs.53.02 lakh addition to J.K. Jewel Craft’s income, ruling that suspicion alone cannot justify unexplained investment during demonetization.
ITAT Rajkot held that addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted since assessee sufficiently proved that all the payments are made from wife’s NRI account.
