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 Ahmedabad held that passing of order by CIT(A) without taking into account the submission made by the assessee is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remitted back to the file of CIT(A).
ITAT Surat held that each and every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. There has to be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealed income for levy of penalty.
It was felt that the minute details of matching of accounts, working out the exact quantum of turnover from the bank accounts and matching of vouchers with expenses claimed could not be done by this Bench of ITAT.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance with the show cause notice and directed to restore the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit in bank not justified since it is proved that cash was deposited out of the sale of agricultural land.
NCLAT Delhi held that if CIRP is initiated fraudulently for any purpose other than the resolution of insolvency or liquidation it can be set aside. Accordingly, CIRP set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that protective addition in the hands of assessee deleted as substantial addition already made in the hands of the assessee’s wife and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable since assessee had explained the source of investment in FDs as being from his FD/OD account.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld part of the unexplained investment addition for Rs. 79.35 lakh in Bhavin V. Maniar’s case, allowing time for further documentation.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of entity from which share application money is received.
