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 : This guide explains how unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and related provisions can attract steep taxation under Section ...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
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 Surat held that rural agricultural land falls outside Section 2(14), deleting capital gains and related additions....
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that gold deposit agreements produced after the survey, without contemporaneous evidence or book entries, coul...
Income Tax : A belated filing of Form 3CLA was a curable procedural defect and could not deprive an assessee of weighted deduction under sectio...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that loose sheets and estimates alone cannot justify an addition under Section 69B without independent corrobora...
Income Tax : The Chennai ITAT held that excess stock found during a survey could not be taxed as unexplained investment when it had been accoun...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
The Tribunal accepted that the 7.5% rebate was a pre-negotiated commercial discount and not an unaccounted cash return. As the seized loose sheets were unverified and unsupported by witnesses, the ₹9.06 crore addition failed.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
ITAT Jabalpur held that CIT(A) cannot blindly follow PCIT directions under section 263. Appellate authorities must independently consider evidence and objections before confirming additions.
ITAT held that additions based on an unsigned, unverified Excel sheet from a third party lacked evidentiary value. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee provided independent evidence disproving alleged on-money payments.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of alleged on-money additions, holding that similar additions had already been overturned in HBPL’s case. The ruling confirms that the AO’s reliance on earlier search findings could not justify the addition.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed when no undisclosed income is found during search operations. Loose documents alone do not justify penalty.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69A/69B relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
