Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Held Unexplained Where Sales and Stock Not Proved—Addition under Sections 69A & 115BBE Sustained: ITAT Lucknow in Gurdas Mal Arora v. AO

Author
My Tax Expert
15/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 155
Read More »
The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of trading in gold and diamond jewellery under the name and style of M/s Pankaj Chain & Jewellers, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declari...

Reopening under Section 150 Valid When Pursuant to CIT(A)’s Direction—Unsecured Loan Addition Deleted on Merits: ITAT Lucknow in Alok Kumar Rungta v. NFAC

Author
My Tax Expert
15/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 129
Read More »
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee challenged both the validity of reasses...

Reassessment Quashed for Procedural Lapses: AO's "Inadvertent" Error Proves Fatal, Abhishek Jayketu Joshi Vs AC CIR-42(2)(1), Mumbai,

Author
CA. Vivek kr. Jain
15/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 454
Read More »
Reassessment Quashed for Procedural Lapses: AO's "Inadvertent" Error Proves FatalThe recent ruling of the ITAT Mumbai in ITA No. 5775/Mum/2025 (order dated 13.01.2026) serves as an important precedent for cases involving...

Penalty Under Section 271B Not Leviable Where Reasonable Cause Exists for Delay in Audit Report Filing: ITAT Chennai in Shark Dyeing Mills v. ITO

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 427
Read More »
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined whether penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to furnish the tax audit report within the prescribed time was sustain...

MLI Cannot Override India–Ireland DTAA Without Section 90 Notification: ITAT Mumbai on Aircraft Lease Rentals – Sky High Appeal XLIII Leasing Co. Ltd. Vs ITAT Mumbai

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 291
Read More »
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Sky High Appeal XLIII Leasing Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Tax) and connected appeals, examined the taxability of lease rental...

Non-Compete Fee Is Capital Expenditure but Eligible for Depreciation as Intangible Asset: Supreme Court Settles Law – Sharp Business System v. CIT

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 298
Read More »
The Supreme Court of India, in Sharp Business System v. Commissioner of Income-tax and connected appeals, examined the long-standing controversy as to whether non-compete fee paid by an assessee constitutes revenue or...

Addition Under Section 68 Requires Proper Opportunity and Consideration of Evidence; Matter Remanded on Admission of Additional Evidence: ITAT Chennai in IRIS Realty LLP v. DCIT

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 244
Read More »
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of share capital introduced by two directors-cum-shareholders, ...

Gift of Immovable Property from Step Sister Not Taxable under Section 56(2)(vii): ITAT Mumbai – Rabin Arup Mukerjea v. ITO (Intl. Tax)

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 267
Read More »
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Rabin Arup Mukerjea v. Income-tax Officer (International Taxation) (ITA No. 5884/Mum/2024), examined the taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1...

Penny Stock LTCG Allegations under Section 10(38): ITAT Mumbai Upholds Deletion of Addition in Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Case, (DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI VS. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI)

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 304
Read More »
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, adjudicated the Revenue’s appeal challenging the deletion of an addition made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of alleged bogus long-term capi...

Vintage Car Not a ‘Personal Effect’ Without Proof of Personal Use: Bombay High Court Upholds Capital Gains Tax – Narendra I. Bhuva v. ACIT

Author
My Tax Expert
14/01/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 293
Read More »
The Bombay High Court, in Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Income Tax Appeal No. 681 of 2003), examined whether a vintage motor car owned by the assessee constituted a “personal effect” e...