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 Pune rules excess stock declared during survey is business income, not unexplained income under 115BBE, if linked to regular business activities.
ITAT Indore rules excess stock surrendered during survey by Suresh Aluminium is business income, not unexplained, directing normal tax rates. Cites key precedents.
Gauhati High Court held that anticipatory bail application is not maintainable since ineligible ITC amount involved is less 5 crores and hence the case falls under bailable offence. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
ITAT Chandigarh held that invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since PCIT failed to establish that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The ITAT Pune ruled that additional income declared during a survey at Patel Shoes Co., consisting of excess stock, cash, and furniture expenditure, is business income, not unexplained income under Sections 69/69C, overriding an initial misclassification.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period deleted since source of cash deposit duly explained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on account of cash credit in the current year cannot be sustained where department had accepted the re-payment of loans in subsequent year. Accordingly, addition confirmed by CIT(A) deleted and appeal allowed.
Patna High Court held that demand cum show cause notice without pre-show cause consultation as per Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CS dated 10.03.2017 justified since petitioner has failed to furnish requisite return in Form ST-3.
ITAT Kolkata held that the reopening of assessment cannot be allowed on the basis of vague reasons, where AO has not done anything as there was gross non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, reopening of assessment u/s. 147 is quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes unexplained investment addition after assessee proves source from spouse’s fixed deposits via banking channels.
