Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling...
Income Tax : ITAT held spousal gift taxable under Section 68 due to lack of evidence on genuineness, bank trail, and donor capacity despite Sec...
Income Tax : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceeding...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that agricultural land situated beyond notified municipal limits is not a capital asset under the Income Tax Act...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that no unexplained investment addition could survive where the booked property deal was cancelled and funds w...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271AAC cannot survive once the underlying Section 153C assessment is quashed. The Tribu...
The Tribunal held that in completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during search. The addition under Section 68 was annulled as jurisdiction was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that mere circulation of funds among group entities does not prove round-tripping unless supported by cogent evidence. Suspicion alone cannot justify addition under Section 68.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted the ₹14.70 lakh addition made under Section 69, holding that the NRI assessee had adequately explained the source of investment in property through documented overseas remittances routed partly via his mothers bank account.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when the bank account is recorded in audited books and disclosed in the ITR. In absence of contrary evidence, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
