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...
No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable value of Rs.22,93,296/- for which deduction has been claimed by the party is part of the value of taxable services and is not allowed.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.
ITAT Jaipur upheld income additions in Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT due to undisclosed cash investments under Section 69 and questioned documentation on financial sources.
In Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT, ITAT Jaipur sets aside additions made under Section 69. The appeal challenges the assessment order for unexplained investments.
ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)’s decision to add undisclosed income under Sec 50C in the case of Kavita Samtani Vs DCIT, relating to discrepancies in reported property sale value.
As per provisions of section 153C of the Act, notice required to be issued to the other person would be a notice under section 153C of the Act, but even then assessment is to be framed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 153A of the Act.
ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that addition u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of excel sheet seized from third party without any independent enquiry and independent corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chennai held that corrigendum issued by AO to rectify the mistake made while issuing original assessment order is legal and valid. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
