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...
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.
Adilakshmi Srungavarapu Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Admitted facts are that the husband of the assessee in order to retain the property got the property registered in the assessee’s name and has repaid the loans borrowed by him by sale of gold jewellery and personal savings of the assessee. We also find merit in the argument […]
M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the question regarding action of the learned CIT (Appeals) to treat the reference u/s 142 for the purpose of Section 69B, I find merit into the contention of the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the learned CIT(Appeals) to assess a […]
ITO Vs Sandeep S. Dagaria (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT notices that Assessing Officer has merely proceeded to make addition of Rs.7,00,000/- unsecured loans merely because the Rajat Group of Companies involved in the transaction of bogus purchases and rejected the evidences submitted before him i.e. assessee has submitted the confirmation balance and the transactions were only […]
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that AO has wrongly made addition of the cash deposit in the bank account u/s 69 of the Act. We do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee because assessee made a cash deposit of the impugned amount […]
ITO Vs Rajeev Suresh Ghai (ITAT Mumbai) It is always useful to bear in mind the fact that, on the first principles, the trigger for taxation of an income in a source jurisdiction is either the economic activity or the linkage of an income with that jurisdiction, and that in the absence of such a […]
United Waterproofing Corporation Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We note that Ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the addition on account of bogus purchases to 100% of the bogus purchases as against 12.5% applied by the AO. The only reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and […]
Addition on account of investment made from undisclosed sources was deleted as as all transactions were made through banking channels and AO had made the addition in question on assumption and presumption basis.
