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 reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal held that invoking Section 115BBE on survey-related excess stock was legally unsustainable for AY 2015-16. The addition was therefore liable to be taxed at normal rates.
The tribunal observed that Way Bills produced by the assessee prima facie supported the claim of business sales. The addition was therefore set aside and restored for fresh verification.
The tribunal deleted the balance addition of ₹91,090 after finding that the amounts represented periodic rental receipts duly disclosed with TDS credit. The key takeaway is that disclosed income cannot be re-taxed as unexplained cash.
The Tribunal held that income admitted during search cannot be treated as undisclosed income unless supported by incriminating material found in the search. In the absence of such material, penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be sustained.
Only income supported by cash actually found during search could attract penal consequences. The balance amount, unsupported by incriminating material, was held outside the scope of Section 271AAB.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that unexplained cash credit under Section 68 must be netted off against business income to prevent double addition. The ruling ensures accurate assessment and fair taxation.
Cash deposits were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
