Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized doc...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income shoul...
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly accepted excess stock and cash disclosed during survey as business income after enquiry. Section 115BBE was not applicable, and PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was invalid.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment proceedings, declaring the assessment order void ab initio due to critical procedural failures, including the use of a manual DIN and jurisdictional violation of the Faceless Assessment regime. This ruling affirms the mandatory nature of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 for all tax orders.
ITAT Mumbai fully deleted Rs.7.23 crore in additions made under Sections 69A, 69B, and 69C following a search. The Tribunal ruled that the black diary entries, initially treated as unexplained expenditure, money, and investment, were actually reconciled with the audited ledgers of the LLP, rendering the AO inference as mere conjecture.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment orders issued outside the Faceless Scheme and without a valid DIN were void ab initio, striking down additions under Sections 69A/69B.
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, documentation, and TDS/TCS compliance with prescribed penalty amounts.
ITAT Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
The Tribunal quashed an unexplained investment addition based purely on a digital ledger retrieved from a mobile phone, as it was not corroborated by any evidence of actual cash payment or movement. Following its own prior ruling, the ITAT confirmed that digital evidence like WhatsApp messages must comply with Section 65B to be est in law.
The Tribunal deleted the unexplained investment (Section 69) and cash interest (Section 69A) additions, emphasizing that unsigned, vague slips and digital data, where the parties were not confronted and no independent verification was done, have no evidentiary value in search assessment law. This aligns with Supreme Court rulings on the invalidity of additions based on non-speaking loose sheets.
