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...
Since the addition pertained to the “receipt of money” from the sale of flats by the assessee and these amounts did not represent the actual receipts in the hands of the assessee, they could not be subjected to tax.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that ex-parte dismissal of appeal on account of non-appearance by CIT(A) without discussing the merits of the case is unsustainable in law. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards share application money, as unexplained credit, deleted as identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders proved.
Article explains how surrendered income is treated under I.T Act, particularly focusing on applicability of Sections 68 to 69D and related provisions.
Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from penalty and prosecution, by accepting the explanation ‘in the spirit of settlement’ cannot be faulted.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, in absence of independent application of mind, invocation of revisionary provisions by CIT unsustainable.
Punjab & Haryana HC upholds Principal Commissioner’s revision under Section 263. Assessing Officer’s wrong Section 44ADA assessment found erroneous.
Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficient evidence to support claims of cost incurred for improvement of property.
Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
