ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of Harshang Kaushikkumar Rami vs ITO to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of Rs. 5 crore cash deposits treated as unexplained income.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of a charitable trust whose exemption claim was rejected owing to mismatched registration details, directing a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
AO had added ₹11,38,000/- towards the amount paid to a builder — ₹8,00,000/- by cheque & ₹3,38,000/- in cash — treating it as unexplained. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition on the ground that Assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment.
Tribunal remanded matter for a de novo assessment after noting that Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order without examining ownership and consideration details in a capital gains case.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, violates natural justice. The ₹60 lakh on-money allegation was deleted.
The Assessee contested a cryptic CIT(A) order that failed to discuss documentation provided for Long Term Capital Gains and property investment sources. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the non-speaking order for de novo adjudication. This ruling reinforces the principle that every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons to ensure fairness and proper justice.
The tax addition on ₹17.63 lakh demonetization cash deposits was challenged as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and savings. The ITAT deleted the addition, emphasizing that prior, undisputed withdrawals cannot be taxed as unexplained money unless the tax authority proves alternate use. The key takeaway upholds the principle that redeposit of existing capital is not income under Section 69A.
Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes Deemed Rent on 5 Flats – Accepts Genuine Vacancy Claim but Upholds Addition on Office Property Assessee, an individual, filed a return declaring income of ₹10.60 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large capital gain deductions claimed u/s 54, 54B, 54EC, 54EE, […]
