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...
Finally, ITAT observed that it is not clear from the order of CIT(A) whether any specific notices on specified dates have been issued to the assessee or service of the notices were properly done or not. CIT (A) did not decide the case on merits.
Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in ITA No. 325/2008 and it was argued that no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of trade creditors when the books of accounts have not been rejected.
Assessee was a illiterate farmer. Assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- u/s 69 on account of purchase of immovable property. Assessment order as well as CIT (A) order, dismissing the appeal, were passed ex-parte.
In the abovementioned case ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was availed by assessee before CIT (A) and revenue has no objection in remanding the matter.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond 3 years liable to be quashed as escaped income is less than INR 50,00,000. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 quashed.
IT Department during demonetization (from November 9, 2016, to December 30,2016) identified various individuals who had deposited substantial sums of cash, under the initiative “Operation Clean Money”.
AO had made the addition with the observation that no response was received from assessee. Based on that, he proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 based on the information available on his record.
CIT (A) erred in treating the loan of Rs.90.52 crores u/s 69A/69B when the show cause notice of enhancement was with reference to section 69 and there were neither any investments which were not recorded in the books of account nor is there any such finding by the CIT(A).
Delhi High Court held that arrest of petitioner involved in availment of input tax credit against fake invoice illegal and set aside the remand order since various discrepancies were noticed in arrest procedure followed by the department.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
