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 Jodhpur partly allows appeal in Kishana Ram vs ITO, upholding additions related to capital discrepancies and agricultural income under Section 143(3).
Surat ITAT condones delay, restores Pareshbhai Godhani’s case to AO for fresh assessment of unexplained demonetization cash deposit.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards cash deposited during demonization period partly set aside based on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that cash sales of liquor is the source of cash deposit during demonetization and accordingly, since the nature and source of investment fully explained by the assessee, addition u/s. 69 of 69A not justifiable.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands ₹77.47 crore unexplained expenditure case of Redex Enterprise due to violation of natural justice during assessment proceedings.
ITAT Pune held that additional income surrendered during the course of survey is taxable at normal rates and not at special rates as per section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Assessee had received Rs. 13.36 crores by cheque/RTGS out of total cash deposit of Rs.24.35 crores in bank account of M/s R. S. Traders during demonetization period. During the survey, several documents and evidences were collected and impounded.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashed addition of cash deposits during demonetization, accepting tuition income and marriage gifts as sources.
ITAT Ahmedabad addressed unexplained cash deposits during demonetization in Jaisinghani vs. ITO, focusing on Sec. 69A and 115BBE.
Bombay High Court held that order passed without granting an opportunity of being heard is passed against the principles of natural justice and accordingly, is liable to be quashed. Thus, petition is allowed and orders are quashed.
