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...
AO proceeded to finalize the assessment based on available records, as the assessee had still not responded or provided any explanations regarding the unexplained cash deposits. AO added the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,13,34,845/- to the total income.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
An enquiry was initiated by Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit against assessee-company and also by multiple DGGI Zonal Units.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that Section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers, and clarifies the retrospective effect of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on property transactions.
Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if details are not satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that as per provisions of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, an agriculturist is not required to maintain books of accounts. Further, revenue has failed to establish anything contrary, accordingly, addition made on this count deleted.
Since the addition pertained to the “receipt of money” from the sale of flats by the assessee and these amounts did not represent the actual receipts in the hands of the assessee, they could not be subjected to tax.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that ex-parte dismissal of appeal on account of non-appearance by CIT(A) without discussing the merits of the case is unsustainable in law. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits.
