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...
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in the case of Vivekkumar S Bhavsar vs ITO, where the matter was remanded back to the AO due to lack of cooperation from the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal, ruling photocopy of sale agreement insufficient evidence for income addition. Analysis & judgment explained.
ITAT Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not considered the stamp duty valuation of the property on the date of agreement, which was in 2015. As per the proviso to the section, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should have been taken into account.
ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and that this benefit cannot be extended to a firm which has been recognized as a separate assessable person under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal recognized the mandate under section 250(6), requiring the appellate authority to state points in dispute and provide reasons for its decision. However, the Commissioner’s order lacked adherence to these requirements, rendering it unsustainable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act as the same is undeclared business income and not unexplained investment.
Read the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Mudita Chaturvedi Vs ACIT case, where the addition of jewellery under section 69 is deleted, citing it as Stri Dhan from parents.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on reason to suspect unsustainable as AO failed to demonstrate live link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition invoking the deeming provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unjustified as nature and source of undisclosed income/ investment duly explained by the assessee.
New Delhi ITAT rules that no addition can be made under Sec 69 if the difference in stock found during survey and recorded in books is reconciled. Detailed analysis of Ultimate Creations Vs ACIT.
