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 : Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited ...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Goods and Services Tax : GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to belie...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that alleged on-money addition based solely on third-party loose papers is unsustainable. In absence of independ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 wa...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Excel sheets recovered from a third party cannot justify addition without direct evidence linking the assessee. In ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal clarified that even where the assessee owns more than ten trucks, Section 44AE can be used as a fair yardstick for in...
The Tribunal held that additions for completed assessment years under section 153A are invalid when no incriminating material is found during search. Reliance on third-party documents and uncorroborated statements was held insufficient to sustain additions.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited in demonetised notes cannot be taxed under Section 69A when it represents recorded business sales. The key takeaway is that duly accounted turnover cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to demonetisation.
The ITAT held that additions based on survey material cannot be sustained without proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after finding violation of natural justice.
The tribunal examined whether gold jewellery seized during police interception could be taxed as unexplained solely based on a statement recorded under enquiry. It held that additions fail where later evidence shows the assessment relied on weak corroboration and inconsistent reasoning.
The appeals were rejected without examining additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that appellate remedies cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities and restored the cases.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Central Circle Cannot Assume Reassessment Powers — Section 148 Notice Issued Outside Faceless Regime Held Void The Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment framed under Section 147 and consequential penalties under Sections 270A and 271AAC in the case of Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi v. ACIT, holding that […]
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
No incriminating material showed payment over the registered consideration. The tribunal held that without independent evidence, the ₹1.52 Cr addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide delay caused by genuine circumstances deserves condonation. The key takeaway is that technical limitation cannot override substantive justice.
