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...
Applying judicial relief on Section 115BBE, the remaining tax demand fell below the prescribed threshold. The ruling reiterates that revenue appeals must be dismissed when tax effect is below CBDT limits.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited during demonetisation came from genuine business sales already offered to tax. It held that taxing the same amount again under Section 68 and Section 115BBE would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal directed normal taxation, holding that Section 115BBE could not be invoked for the year involved. This reinforces the prospective operation of the higher tax regime.
The Tribunal restricted additions on demonetization-era cash deposits where books were audited and not rejected. Only a nominal amount was sustained to balance equity.
Where real estate sale proceeds and donations are transparently reflected in financial statements, unexplained money provisions fail. The decision reinforces limits on Revenues powers based on conjecture.
The Tribunal held that a continuously maintained ledger found during search constituted reliable evidence. Additions for unexplained expenditure under section 69C were sustained based on corroborated diary entries.
The AO had treated all bank cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that regular cash sales explained most deposits and restricted the addition to ₹10 lakh only.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained by cash sales recorded in regular books. When books are not rejected and sales are accepted, separate addition is unsustainable.
The dispute included disallowance under section 14A exceeding exempt income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income and rejected a higher computation. The decision reinforces judicial limits on Rule 8D application.
The Tribunal found that additions under section 69A were made without examining evidence due to non-compliance. The matter was remanded to allow verification of claimed trading and agricultural receipts.
