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 Hyderabad partly allows Revenue’s appeal in Net Net Ventures case. Rs.7 Cr addition deleted; Rs.1.47 Cr and Rs.1.73 Cr issues remanded for verification.
ITAT Chandigarh deletes an addition, ruling that an unsigned and unregistered agreement to sell is not valid evidence for making an addition under Section 69 or 69B.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit during demonetization not justified since assessee has sufficiently explained that the said deposit is from earlier withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker License by Customs authorities not sustainable since there is no violation of Regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 as alleged in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
A procedural error by the First Appellate Authority leads the ITAT Ahmedabad to send an unexplained investment case back to the Assessing Officer The court directs the AO to properly investigate the source of funds for a property purchase.
Read about ITAT Cochin’s decision in Prabheesh Nair vs. ITO, where court set aside a tax appeal dismissal and mandated a new hearing, underscoring legal requirement for appellate authorities to pass reasoned orders.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
Revenue argued that since assessee was an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15), AO rightly passed the order and the final order was valid within the time limit of section 153(4). On appeal.
The Patna ITAT holds that Section 69 applies even without books of account, but remands a case for fresh verification after the assessee provided new evidence of earlier cash payments.
ITAT Chennai held that the amount gifted by the brother cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act deleted to that extent. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
