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...
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as source for purchase of property duly established with necessary evidences.
Addition on account of unexplained investments under section 69 could not be made as whatever deposits were made were either out of the past savings or from the loans taken from relatives.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee being non-resident, income has been invested in India and not arisen in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT in Delhi has directed a re-adjudication in the case of Kishan Singh & Associates Vs ITO involving an addition made by AO under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act due to non-filing of ROI.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment untenable as source of investment made by the appellant stands sufficiently explained.
ITAT Amritsar held that in case of non-cooperation during conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the time limit to do the same can be extended at the end of the department.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in the case of Raj Kumar Vs ACIT, held that a S. 69 addition is not sustainable based on a mere delay in deposit during the demonetisation period.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand for extended period sustained as appellant collected service tax without registration and without filing of ST-3 returns and also failed to credit the amount collected into the Government account.
