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 long-term capital gains cannot be disallowed solely on investigation reports and assumptions. It found that documentary evidence and investment history supported genuineness, leading to deletion of additions under Section 68.
ITAT remands ₹33.12 lakh agricultural income claim due to lack of evidence; holds no proof means taxable u/s 68/115BBE, but grants one more chance for verification, imposing ₹2,000 cost for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income should be taxed as business income, not as unexplained investment under special provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. Addition under Section 69A was deleted as the AO failed to rebut the explanation.
The tribunal held that cash deposits backed by sales records cannot be treated as unexplained income. It upheld deletion of addition where transactions were properly documented.
The case involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained income. The tribunal accepted the explanation of foreign remittances and deleted the addition, emphasizing lack of contrary evidence.
he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
The Tribunal held that cash disclosed in earlier returns can explain seized cash. It restricted addition to the unexplained portion. Key takeaway: prior disclosures carry strong evidentiary value.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 68 cannot apply to opening balances; remands ₹55.53 lakh addition for verification, directing AO to examine prior-year records and delete addition if no fresh credit arose during the year.
