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...
This ITAT Rajkot decision clarifies that when an assessee establishes a clear nexus between past bank withdrawals and subsequent demonetisation cash deposits, the high tax rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable. The Tribunal, citing a Gujarat HC judgment, deleted the entire addition except for a 5% estimated profit to balance revenue interest and taxpayer evidence.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
The ITAT granted relief by ruling that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to income voluntarily disclosed during a survey if no specific unexplained cash credit or investment section (like 68 or 69) was invoked. The Tribunal held that the disclosed income remains taxable, but only at normal tax rates.
The ITAT significantly reduced an unexplained cash credit addition from Rs. 32.86 lakh to a lump-sum of Rs.4 lakh, reasoning that a regular exporter with maintained books cannot have the entire demonetisation deposit treated as unexplained. Crucially, the Tribunal directed the tax to be computed at normal rates, holding that Section 115BBE (higher tax rate) does not apply to the financial year 2016-17.
Tribunal held that write-off of ₹9.56 crore foreign investment in USA subsidiary was incurred for commercial expediency and business expansion, qualifying as business loss under the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that cash deposits of Rs.9.37 crore made by Arvindbhai Jewellers during demonetisation were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was invalid, as there was no defect in the quantitative stock register, and suspicion alone cannot be a basis for addition.
Interest under Section 234B cannot be levied on Section 115BBE-assessed income for resident senior citizens exempt from advance tax, as per ITAT and CBDT guidance.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, including a ₹75 lakh unexplained cash advance addition, after finding that the earlier dismissal was based purely on a procedural technicality. The ruling emphasizes that the CIT(A) must use their wide powers to adjudicate on merits and cannot reject an appeal at the threshold.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
