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...
ITAT restored the case to the Assessing Officer to examine jurisdictional defects, evidence, and applicability of section 115BBE. Technical dismissal by the appellate authority was set aside.
The Tribunal held that past cash withdrawals cannot justify demonetisation deposits without evidence of continued cash holding. The is that unexplained deposits attract section 69A.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from recorded pharmacy sales during demonetisation cannot be added under section 68 when turnover is accepted and duly taxed.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld ₹59.9 lakh addition from demonetisation-period cash deposits and GP estimation, confirming the rejection of unverifiable books due to abnormal sales and fraudulent stock.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that detailed stock, sales, VAT, and bank records satisfactorily explained cash deposits of ₹2.07 crore, overturning additions made by AO and CIT(A).
