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 revision cannot be based on alleged lack of enquiry when detailed verification was already done. A mere change of opinion does not justify section 263 action.
The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE on alleged unexplained cash. The Tribunal held the provision to be prospective and barred its application for the year under appeal.
Cash deposited during demonetisation was explained as coming from income surrendered and accepted in an earlier survey. The Tribunal held that disbelief about holding cash cannot replace evidence and deleted the section 69A addition.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal accepted possible redeposit of earlier withdrawals and restricted the addition to ₹2 lakh.
The Revenue taxed entire demonetisation cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A with section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that cash sales are possible in retail trade and restricted the addition to a 10% GP estimate.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment where the Assessing Officer invoked section 147 without examining books of account or correlating bank deposits with returned income.
