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 reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Chandigarh restricted the unexplained cash addition to ₹2.5 lakh, deleting ₹10 lakh in Sher Singh vs ITO for AY 2017–18, citing partial explanation from agricultural and milk income.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of additions under Section 68 after the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of lenders. Interest disallowance was also deleted as loans were repaid and taxed transactions verified.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by CIT(A) since cash deposit during demonetization duly reflected as cash sales and there was no abnormal spike in sales during demonetization.
Madras High Court quashes assessment against SMILE Microfinance Ltd. for violation of natural justice and directs reassessment with personal hearing within 12 weeks.
ITAT held that funds from earlier years and IDS disclosures cannot justify cash deposits made in a later year without proper linkage or documentation. Addition under Section 68 was upheld.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the addition of ₹1.77 Cr as unexplained cash credit, directing the Assessing Officer to verify evidence, including the assessee’s claim of exempt agricultural income.
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that additional income offered by a taxpayer during a survey, derived from business-related discrepancies like excess cash or stock, must be taxed at normal business rates. The tribunal held that the punitive tax rate under Section 115BBE does not apply if the income is clearly established as business income and does not fall under the deemed income provisions (Sections 69 to 69D).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly accepted excess stock and cash disclosed during survey as business income after enquiry. Section 115BBE was not applicable, and PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was invalid.
