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 allowed assessee’s appeal against Section 68 addition, stressing that AO must evaluate annual business activity, stock, and legitimate cash sales. This decision safeguards traders during exceptional periods like demonetization.
ITAT held that criminal and departmental actions against former office bearers justified the 204-day delay. Assessment was remanded because additions were made without examining evidence.
ITAT upholds deletion of Section 69 addition after remand verification showed property purchases were recorded as business stock. Ruling highlights that properly accounted stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as unexplained investment.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE deposit sources under Section 69.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
Since the transactions in seized records were only notional mock trading entries and not unexplained cash credits, only brokerage income at 1% of transaction value was taxable.
The ITAT Mumbai remanded a ₹50 lakh addition case after finding that a business loan was omitted from audited accounts and required further verification.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal challenging PCIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the Commissioner can revise orders even when the matter is pending before CIT(A). Key takeaway: jurisdiction under Sec. 263 extends to unresolved appeals.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a genuine ₹50 lakh loan received and fully repaid with interest cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68. The addition by AO and CIT(A) was deleted as the assessee provided full banking and repayment evidence.
