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...
Merely, because the assessee’s PAN number was mentioned as he was the Director of one of the company, the purchase cannot be said to be made by him when the purchase has been shown in the P&L account by the said company itself as well as part of the closing stock of the said company, namely, Iscon Procon Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of loose sheet alone without any other corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
AO made additions on ground that cash deposited in bank account was more than total turnover declared by assessee, since assessee furnished bank statements which showed that there were deposits and withdrawals of almost equal amounts and AO failed to give any findings regarding said withdrawals, assessee deserved to get benefit of telescoping and thus, addition was unjustified
Revenue could not controvert the fact that there has been frequent deposits and withdrawals by the assessee out of his saving bank account. No evidence is available on record suggesting that the money as withdrawn by the assessee was used for any other purpose.
Vishnunarayan R. Modani Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has not furnished any material to show that the share transactions entered by him are genuine transactions. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the capital gain of Rs.136,812/- and Rs.150,575/- as income under the head ‘income from other […]
Sunita Chaudhry Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that SEBI vide interim order dated 19/12/2014 and 11/08/2015, inter-alia, restrained 154 entities, including the assessee, from accessing the securities market and buying, selling or dealing in securities, either directly or indirectly, in any manner, till further directions, pending investigation in the script of in case of […]
Dive into Anuradha Pandey’s case vs. ITO (ITAT Varanasi). ITAT’s scrutiny on investment source from closing stock and debtors. Analysis of the disputed addition and its resolution
ACIT Vs Pradip Mullick (ITAT Kolkata) Assessee submitted that owing to business of manufacturing and sale of sweets and confectioneries, he has to regularly purchase different types of raw materials from different vendors for his day to day business requirement. The number of vendors are large as there are small vendors mostly supplying perishable item […]
Held that factors like high status, family tradition, deduction on account of purity and deduction towards Streedhan should be considered before making addition on account of unexplained investment. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO; it is only when an order is erroneous as also prejudicial to Revenue’s interest, that the provision will be attracted.
