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...
The issue involved taxing property value as unexplained investment without prior notice. The Court held that absence of a show cause notice under Section 69 violated principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of the order.
Bombay High Court held that import of cosmetic goods without Central Drugs Standard Control Organization license are considered prohibited goods hence the same are liable to be confiscated even if the same were meant for re-export.
ITAT held that entire receipts cannot be treated as unexplained when income is already offered to tax. Only unverifiable expenses can be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that tenancy supported by rent receipts, bills, and agreements cannot be treated as a sham. It upheld exemption under Section 54F on surrender of tenancy rights.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on third-party Excel sheets and statements. It ruled that absence of independent evidence and denial of cross-examination renders such additions invalid.
ITAT remanded the matter where the assessee claimed PAN misuse leading to additions under Sections 68 and 69. It directed AO to verify the police report, holding that relief must be granted if misuse is substantiated.
ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
