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...
Analysis of the ITAT Delhi case Gloria Eugenia Rynjah Banerji Vs ITO, focusing on why income tax addition of Rs.2002801 was not deleted despite a technical error by the Assessing Officer.
Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in ITO vs Jakshibhai Dahyabhai Bharvad. Understand how CIT(A) order was upheld, affecting income tax additions.
ITAT Chandigarh held that transaction not recorded at the time of survey qualify as unrecorded transactions, however, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation about the nature and source of such unrecorded transactions and hence invoking deeming provisions of section 69-69D of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Chandigarh held that transactions which were not recorded at the time of survey are unrecorded transaction, however, as nature and source of such unrecorded transaction explained the same cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that towards unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of unsigned unexecuted draft agreement to sale without any other collaborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
A detailed analysis of the landmark CESTAT Kolkata ruling in Emta Coal Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax. Understand the legal implications for Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods in the context of providing output services.
ITAT Delhi held that entire addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of presumption is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices evidencing the payment of service tax for period prior to amendments made in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by way of insertion of Rule 9 (1) (bb) effective from 01.04.2011 is unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information received by AO from DDIT (investigation) justified subject to fulfilment of conditions as envisaged u/s 147/148.
Read how ITAT Ahmedabad orders fresh adjudication due to non-cooperation of tax consultant in furnishing property investment details in Pravinchandra Naranbhai Patel case.
