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...
ITAT Jaipur upheld income additions in Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT due to undisclosed cash investments under Section 69 and questioned documentation on financial sources.
In Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT, ITAT Jaipur sets aside additions made under Section 69. The appeal challenges the assessment order for unexplained investments.
ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)’s decision to add undisclosed income under Sec 50C in the case of Kavita Samtani Vs DCIT, relating to discrepancies in reported property sale value.
As per provisions of section 153C of the Act, notice required to be issued to the other person would be a notice under section 153C of the Act, but even then assessment is to be framed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 153A of the Act.
ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that addition u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of excel sheet seized from third party without any independent enquiry and independent corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chennai held that corrigendum issued by AO to rectify the mistake made while issuing original assessment order is legal and valid. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remitted the matter since addition confirmed by CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order as assessee didn’t appeared nor complied to the notices. Accordingly, matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
Assessee had deposited Rs.2,25,00,000/- during the demonetization period in the bank account and explained the reason of the cash deposit, hence he had discharged the onus and prove the genuineness of the transaction.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest expense by treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act needs re-verification. Accordingly, matter send back to the file of jurisdictional AO.
