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 : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
Explore the ITAT Rajkot’s detailed analysis of Vaidya Realities vs PCIT case under Section 263, highlighting the AO’s assessment, PCIT’s concerns, and the final verdict.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee has not discharged its onus to satisfactorily prove the incurring of expenditure for running the alleged Hotel Management Business. Thus, in absence of satisfactory documentary evidence, addition u/s. 68 of entire turnover disclosed as hotel management business sustained.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in PCIT (Central) vs. Sanjay Singhal upholds ITAT’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for AY 2015-16, emphasizing need for incriminating material for valid additions.
ead about the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing an income tax notice under Section 148A for being barred by limitation. Case details of Bijendra Singh vs ITO.
Since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax.
Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 69C. Learn about penalties and consequences.
Assessee-individual was carrying out various types of business including property development, liquor shop, medicine shop and rental income. The return was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1).
Addition made under Section 69 on account of the difference in excess stock of 22 Kt Gold and Polki Jewellery was not justified as the total weight of items of 22KT Gold jewelry and 22KT Gold Polki jewelry was 36,943 gms, and as per the estimated value, the difference was merely 113.50 gms, which was 0.32%.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
Kerala High Court held that bail application of petitioner involved in tax evasion of more than Rs. 6.5 crores on allegation of supply of goods without issuance of invoice rejected as such serious allegations needs thorough investigation.
