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 Delhi orders deletion of ₹26.35 lakh addition on cash deposits during demonetization but upholds ₹7.52 lakh addition for unreconciled purchases.
ITAT Jaipur ruling on Parshavnath Buildestate Pvt Ltd vs ACIT regarding unexplained expenditures under Section 69C and taxation under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee just needs to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. Assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted since genuineness of transaction proved.
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since AO duly verified investment and payment of ESI/PF.
Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ensuring that the sale is recorded in the system and adds a layer of authenticity.
Additional income offered by assessee on account of cash and excess stock is liable to be taxed as business income and not unexplained investment under section 69A at special rates of 115BBE.
ITAT Chennai rules bad debt recovery as business income, deleting Rs. 1 crore addition under Section 69A. Read full details on the tribunal’s decision.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition of the amount already recorded as cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition is deleted and appeal is allowed.
ITAT Lucknow held that addition by calculating sales on hypothetical basis and completely ignoring various evidences submitted during course of assessment proceedings is unjustifiable. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition is deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not legally sustainable since nature and source of cash deposits duly explained. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
