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...
In the abovementioned case ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was availed by assessee before CIT (A) and revenue has no objection in remanding the matter.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond 3 years liable to be quashed as escaped income is less than INR 50,00,000. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 quashed.
IT Department during demonetization (from November 9, 2016, to December 30,2016) identified various individuals who had deposited substantial sums of cash, under the initiative “Operation Clean Money”.
AO had made the addition with the observation that no response was received from assessee. Based on that, he proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 based on the information available on his record.
CIT (A) erred in treating the loan of Rs.90.52 crores u/s 69A/69B when the show cause notice of enhancement was with reference to section 69 and there were neither any investments which were not recorded in the books of account nor is there any such finding by the CIT(A).
Delhi High Court held that arrest of petitioner involved in availment of input tax credit against fake invoice illegal and set aside the remand order since various discrepancies were noticed in arrest procedure followed by the department.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of order by CIT(A) without taking into account the submission made by the assessee is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remitted back to the file of CIT(A).
ITAT Surat held that each and every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. There has to be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealed income for levy of penalty.
It was felt that the minute details of matching of accounts, working out the exact quantum of turnover from the bank accounts and matching of vouchers with expenses claimed could not be done by this Bench of ITAT.
