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 Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai overturns AO’s Rs.53.02 lakh addition to J.K. Jewel Craft’s income, ruling that suspicion alone cannot justify unexplained investment during demonetization.
ITAT Rajkot held that addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted since assessee sufficiently proved that all the payments are made from wife’s NRI account.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has duly explained the source of his share of the investment made in the property purchased. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Pune held that once primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails then AO doesn’t possess jurisdiction to tax any other income in reassessment order. Hence, re-assessment is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 towards unaccounted gold and silver jewellery set aside relying on CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Raipur held that AO has passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B(b) of the Act without seeking a prior approval of the same by the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act and hence the order so passed is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside ex-parte NFAC order but imposes ₹10,000 cost on the assessee for failure to justify non-compliance in the appellate stage.
Assessee didnot file ITR for AY 2012-13 during which assessee made cash deposit of Rs.45,69,722/-. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was sent through e-mail against which no ITR was filed. Hence, AO made addition u/s 69A.
Understand the applicability of Section 68 (cash credit) and Section 69 (unexplained investments) under the Income Tax Act with relevant case law examples.
