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 : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
ITAT Indore held that addition on the standalone basis of statement of assessee u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act cannot be held as sustainable in absence of collaborative evidence found in support of such addition.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition as nature of entries found in the cash book which were not recorded in the day book was not considered.
ITAT Indore held that the deeming fiction created in section 50C cannot be extended to the provision of section 69 or 69B or any other of the Act in the case of purchaser to make the purchaser liable for tax.
ITAT Chandigarh set aside the addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act to the file of AO to test the enforceability of agreement to sell as per relevant statue vis-à-vis fresh affidavit.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once additional income offered during survey was simply accepted and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Then, provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked via rectification as per section 154.
Delve into the intricacies of the case Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), analyzing the discrepancy between Section 68 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that provision of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act as amended vide Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill 2016 which is effective from 01.04.2017 cannot be applied to search conducted prior to the effective date.
ITAT Surat held that addition as unexplained investment in the hands of one of the co-owner unsustainable as department didn’t made proportionate addition in the hands of other co-owners.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act sustained as no corroborative evidence produced to prove the source for the cash deposits during demonetization period.
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s 69 towards unexplained money sustained on failure to explain the source of the cash deposits with necessary evidences.
