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...
Delhi High Court sustains anticipatory bail for accused acting under main culprits directions in a significant GST evasion case, setting a legal precedent.
Explore the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Pasari Casting vs. Income Tax Department, addressing a critical tax reassessment issue. A detailed analysis inside.
Read the full text of the judgment/order by Delhi High Court on the Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs Jitender Kumar case involving a Rs 195 Crores GST fraud.
Explore the ITAT Rajkot’s detailed analysis of Vaidya Realities vs PCIT case under Section 263, highlighting the AO’s assessment, PCIT’s concerns, and the final verdict.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee has not discharged its onus to satisfactorily prove the incurring of expenditure for running the alleged Hotel Management Business. Thus, in absence of satisfactory documentary evidence, addition u/s. 68 of entire turnover disclosed as hotel management business sustained.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in PCIT (Central) vs. Sanjay Singhal upholds ITAT’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for AY 2015-16, emphasizing need for incriminating material for valid additions.
ead about the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing an income tax notice under Section 148A for being barred by limitation. Case details of Bijendra Singh vs ITO.
Since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax.
Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 69C. Learn about penalties and consequences.
Assessee-individual was carrying out various types of business including property development, liquor shop, medicine shop and rental income. The return was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1).
