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 ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be taxed u/s 68 when all sales were recorded, verified, and supported by stock and VAT records. Since books were audited, accepted, and showed no defect, the addition of ₹12.20 crore based on mere averages was unsustainable. The ruling confirms that documented cash sales cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit.
The ITAT held that cash deposits recorded in books and from legitimate business sales during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. Entire addition of ₹45.23 lakh was quashed.
The ITAT ruled that a vague, copy-paste satisfaction note cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since no specific seized documents were identified, the entire assessment was struck down.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that unexplained partner capital contributions cannot be treated as income of the firm. Only individual partners’ contributions can be assessed, overturning a Rs. 3.26 crore addition.
Reopening Based on Incorrect LTCG Information Invalid; Long-Held Penny-Stock Shares Treated as Genuine — ITAT Mumbai Quashes Additions
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to reassess ULIP maturity receipts treated as unexplained investment after the exemption claim was not evaluated earlier.
The Tribunal found that notices lacking classification as limited, complete, or manual scrutiny violated CBDT instructions. As a result, the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed as void ab initio.
Tribunal invalidated the reassessment because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii), rendering the Section 148 notice void.
ITAT partly upheld addition of Rs.27.5 lakh as unexplained cash under sections 69A and 115BBE, granting limited relief of Rs.7.5 lakh for partial savings.
