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 an assessment framed without issuing a compulsory notice under section 153C lacks jurisdiction. Even seized material cannot cure this foundational defect, rendering the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the AO had examined land records, crop sale documents, and other evidence before making the assessment. Since due inquiry was conducted, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The tribunal held that an ex parte assessment involving large unexplained bank credits required fresh adjudication. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with one final opportunity to the assessee.
The case examined whether an appellate authority could set aside an ex-parte reassessment. The tribunal held that the amended proviso to section 251(1)(a) expressly allows such remand to ensure assessment on merits.
The Tribunal ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied retrospectively for demonetisation-period transactions. As the tax effect at normal rates fell below the monetary limit, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that inventory figures from a management Excel sheet, without quantity details or physical verification, cannot form the basis of an addition. Properly recorded GST-compliant sales explained the variance.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on third-party search material without corroboration is unsustainable. With payments proved through banking channels, the cash allegation failed.
Applying the test of human probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that unexplained abnormal sales could not be fully accepted. At the same time, absence of book defects warranted estimation instead of outright section 68 taxation.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from genuine sales already recorded in books cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. The key takeaway is that such additions amount to impermissible double taxation.
