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 Lucknow held that cash deposits during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained credit since the same is made out of cash sales. Accordingly, addition merely on suspicion, doubt, conjecture and guess work cannot be sustained.
Delhi ITAT deleted a 69C unexplained expenditure addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that when corresponding sales are accepted and payments made via banking channels, the purchase cannot be disallowed without tangible proof of manipulation.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an income tax addition made under Section 69A based on seized on-money documents lacking direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the entire cash component couldn’t be treated as undisclosed income, instead taxing only 8% of the disputed amount as a profit element at normal rates.
Delhi ITAT deleted ₹40.07 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-era cash deposits in proprietary firms, because the AO had accepted the audited books showing sufficient cash balance. The ruling emphasizes that additions for business deposits cant be made when the books arent rejected and sales/purchases arent doubted.
The Delhi ITAT sustained a Rs.42.98 lakh addition for unexplained expenditure found in a seized diary, ruling that the entries proved a sufficient nexus to the assessee under Section 292C. However, the Tribunal provided partial relief by directing the lower tax rate under the pre-amendment Section 115BBE to be applied for AY 2015-16.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT deleted a protective addition under Section 68 for cash deposits after finding the same income was already declared and taxed in the partners’ individual returns, rendering the firm’s assessment redundant.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
