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...
Gujarat High Court upholds deletion of ₹11.57 crore addition, ruling that repayment of loan within the same financial year proves its genuineness.
A summary of the ITAT Kolkata ruling in the case of Laxmi Agarwal, a doctor, where the tribunal quashed a 60% tax levy on cash deposits.
The ITAT Pune ruled that excess cash found during a business survey should be taxed as normal business income, not at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.
ITAT Ranchi quashes orders applying the 60% tax rate of Section 115BBE to A.Y. 2017-18, clarifying the amendment is effective from A.Y. 2018-19.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be added as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since sufficient explanation of source of cash deposit provided by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since the cash deposit is already added while filing the return of income under the head other sources. Accordingly, addition set aside and appeal allowed.
An analysis of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, which imposes a high flat tax on unexplained income, and its potential conflicts with constitutional rights related to equality, trade, and retrospective penalties.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were properly explained and recorded, therefore, addition made under section 69A of ₹17,16,000 and taxed under section 115BBE was not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad sends unexplained demonetization cash deposit case back to AO, granting assessee new chance to explain source after ex-parte order.
