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 Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not legally sustainable since nature and source of cash deposits duly explained. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on record incriminating the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 deleted.
The appellant is engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods falling under chapter 84 and are availing Cenvat credit of duty and tax paid on inputs and input services and are also registered u/s. 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for discharging their service tax liability.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands case due to incorrect notice delivery, allowing reassessment of unexplained deposits and income under natural justice principles.
ITAT Chennai remands case for fresh assessment, allowing Ramesh Sreenivasalu to submit documents on demonetization cash deposits. Assessee fined Rs. 20,000.
ITAT, by going through established precedents, held that AO had not recorded any dissatisfaction with assessee’s voluntary disallowance, nor had he provided any basis for invoking Rule 8D
Learn how the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to the AO’s misapplication of law in taxing Stamp Duty Valuation and Unexplained Investment. Explore detailed analysis of Section 56(2)(x), Section 69, and key judicial precedents.
ITAT Indore partly allows Saaras Agro’s appeal, ruling on Section 69 and 115BBE additions. Key judicial precedents and CBDT circulars cited.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implications on tax assessments.
