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 Bangalore held that addition u/s. 69A unjustified as cash deposited in bank account is from business income and the same is already considered under the Profits & gains of business or profession.
The assessee is an individual, whose case for AY 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of AIR information available in the system of department, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served upon the assessee through RPAD.
Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that if the AO’s view is legally permissible, even if it results in a lower tax liability, the revisional authority cannot invoke Section 263 simply because it disagrees with the AO’s approach.
AO proceeded to finalize the assessment based on available records, as the assessee had still not responded or provided any explanations regarding the unexplained cash deposits. AO added the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,13,34,845/- to the total income.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
An enquiry was initiated by Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit against assessee-company and also by multiple DGGI Zonal Units.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that Section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers, and clarifies the retrospective effect of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on property transactions.
Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if details are not satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that as per provisions of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, an agriculturist is not required to maintain books of accounts. Further, revenue has failed to establish anything contrary, accordingly, addition made on this count deleted.
