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 issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
Once the cash credit addition failed, the special tax under Section 115BBE could not survive. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, reaffirming that consequential provisions fall with the primary addition.
The penalty was levied solely on the basis of an alleged unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the quantum addition was fully deleted, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty automatically collapses.
It was ruled that deciding appeals based on facts of another year is a serious legal error. The matter was sent back for reconsideration on correct facts.
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that absence of evidence beyond one month bars estimation for the full year. Only the amount directly supported by survey material can be taxed.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
