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...
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer incorrectly treated consignment transactions as the assessees turnover based solely on cess payments. The ruling emphasizes that commission agents should be taxed on commission income and not on consignors turnover.
The Tribunal admitted lenders’ tax returns and bank statements and remanded the Section 68 issue for fresh examination. The matter was sent back for verification of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.
The Tribunal held that property investment funded through documented foreign remittances from the assessee’s husband could not be treated as unexplained. Bank records and remittance confirmations established the complete source of funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had fully explained the source of investment through bank records showing direct payment by her father. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as unsupported by evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statements, and tax records, and the Revenue failed to establish any cash trail or nexus with alleged accommodation entries.
The Amritsar ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the officer completing the assessment had not issued the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only ₹5 lakh, far below the ₹50 lakh requirement under Section 149(1)(b). As a result, the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed.
The assessee challenged an ex parte reassessment order that treated property investment as unexplained under Section 69. ITAT held that adequate opportunity should be provided before sustaining substantial additions and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that AY 2010-11 was outside the permissible ten-year assessment block computable under Section 153A. Applying the Delhi High Court’s interpretation in Ojjus Medicare, it found the notice itself invalid. As a result, the assessment proceedings were quashed and the appeals were allowed.
