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 restricted unexplained cash addition from Rs.78 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs, granting relief on demonetization deposits while maintaining that it is not a precedent-setting decision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
The AO alleged concocted sales but brought no evidence, and the CIT(A) also found no discrepancies in the accounts. With complete documentation showing genuine sales and business use of funds, the Tribunal removed most of the addition. Section 115BBE was also ruled inapplicable for the year.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, as they fall outside TOLA provisions and are time-barred.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte dismissal of the AY 2018-19 appeal, restoring the matter to CIT(A) for merits-based hearing. The assessee was allowed to present evidence regarding ₹3.74 crore unexplained investment and estimated profits.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained through duly recorded cash sales supported by VAT returns and stock records. Key takeaway: When books are accepted, cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained.
Tribunal partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
