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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition made on the basis of third-party WhatsApp chat without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The issue was whether the full value of alleged bogus purchases could be added to income. The Tribunal upheld that only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where loan repayments were sourced from stock sales and fresh loans. It ruled that without rejecting books or disproving records, section 68 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal deleted both substantive and protective additions made across multiple years on the same alleged receipts. It held that such duplication results in impermissible multiple taxation of identical amounts.
The Tribunal held that serving notices on an outdated email ID violates principles of natural justice. The assessment was set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication after proper service.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits arising from regulated liquor sales are a normal business incident. Where bank reconciliations explain the source, Section 69A cannot be invoked.
The case examined whether customer advances reported in service tax returns constituted taxable revenue. The Tribunal ruled that revenue accrues only on execution of conveyance deeds, and advances cannot be treated as under-reported turnover.
The dispute arose from purchases made from vendors with weak tax profiles. The Tribunal held that vendor defaults do not justify section 69C when the assessee proves the source and recording of expenditure.
The Assessing Officer accepted multiple loan transactions but treated only one as unexplained. The tribunal held that selective rejection without consistent reasoning was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that when an eligible assessee fails to file objections before the DRP within time, a direct appeal to the Tribunal is barred. Non-compliance with section 144C renders the appeal non-maintainable.
