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 Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained merely on the basis of statements recorded from representatives of the builder group. In the absence of incriminating material directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, the addition of ₹31 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be accepted solely on the basis of loan confirmations. It held that confirmations alone do not establish creditworthiness or genuineness and directed further verification by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court granted bail in a GST fraud prosecution after noting that the investigation had been completed and the complaint had already been filed. The Court held that the allegations would be examined during trial and continued custody was not warranted at that stage.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 could not be invoked where YEIDA payments were recorded in the books and funded through an RBI-registered NBFC. The ruling emphasizes that explained and documented sources of investment cannot be treated as unexplained investments.
The Court held that although notices were sent to the address available in PAN and passport records, the reassessment order could not stand because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment, demand notices, penalties, and recovery proceedings were set aside.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 1.25 crore through bank records, PPF withdrawals, and documented fund movements. Since the transactions were verifiable through banking channels, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.
ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Assessing Officer examined the audited books, balance sheet, and supporting records but did not identify any discrepancy or reject the accounts. ITAT held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 115BBE was unsustainable.
