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...
The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment additions under Section 69. Absence of corroborative evidence led to deletion of the entire addition.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the Assessing Officer ignored the assessees detailed response and documentary evidence. ITAT ruled that such action violated principles of natural justice and reflected non-application of mind.
The Tribunal held that merely declaring presumptive income under Section 44AD does not exempt taxpayers from explaining massive bank credits. In absence of purchase records, bills, or confirmations, Section 69A addition was sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no unexplained investment addition could survive where the booked property deal was cancelled and funds were refunded. The ruling emphasized verification of actual payment flow and subsequent cancellation events.
The Tribunal held that validity of reopening under Section 148 must be tested on the basis of material available when reassessment proceedings are initiated. Subsequent reduction in additions does not invalidate jurisdiction already assumed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271AAC cannot survive once the underlying Section 153C assessment is quashed. The Tribunal deleted the penalty after noting that the quantum assessment itself no longer existed.
The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-believe or accommodation entry transaction. The assessee’s regular trading history supported the genuineness of the transactions.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions exceeding ₹10.57 crore made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) after finding that the Assessing Officer wrongly adopted an amended valuation approach retrospectively. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion in entirety.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp duty value fell within the permissible tolerance band applicable retrospectively.
Mumbai ITAT observed that assessable value under customs law may differ from invoice value and such variation by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69C without further evidence.
