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...
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
Jai Prakash Virmani Vs DCIT/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi Holds Additional Income Applied Towards House Construction Cannot be Taxed Again as Unexplained Investment – Section 69 & 115BBE Not Applicable A survey u/s 133A was conducted at Assessee’s business premises on 23.01.2019. Loose papers indicating cash withdrawals & expenditure on construction of house were impounded. […]
Additions made under section 69A against assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12 to 2018-19 was deleted as proceedings initiated on the basis of seized documents which did not mention assessee’s name were unsustainable.
Gujarat High Court upholds deletion of ₹11.57 crore addition, ruling that repayment of loan within the same financial year proves its genuineness.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has sent a cash deposit addition case back to the Assessing Officer for review, citing new evidence including a joint bank account with an agriculturist father and an affidavit.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted an addition under Section 69 and a tax addition under Section 56(2), ruling that a taxpayer’s salary account was a valid source for property investment.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a taxpayer isn’t obligated to prove ‘source of source’ for funds, deleting an addition on a property investment.
The ITAT Chennai has upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits for Sucram Pharmaceuticals, citing a lack of proof for alleged debt recoveries and scrap sales.
Tribunal holds cash deposits of ₹1.25 crore matching turnover in books cannot be treated as unexplained income u/s 69. Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
ITAT Chennai rules that an addition under Section 69 must be based on corroborated evidence, not just third-party documents or a retracted statement.
