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 Kolkata deletes Rs.52.25 lakh addition under Section 69A for unaccounted fees. Evidence proved the amount was properly accounted for in the trust’s records.
ITAT Surat held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization restricted to 10% of total deposit since assessee fully substantiated the cash deposit showing sufficient withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that taxability of surrendered undisclosed income under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act requires verification on the part of the AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO.
CIT (A) was directed to reassess the long-term capital gain (LTCG) claim as it was found that new evidence submitted by assessee had not been considered during the earlier proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax rate u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable only with effect from 1st April 2017 and not prior to the same. Hence, appeal allowed to that extent.
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of undisclosed cash deposits during demonetization period after observing that assessee has substantiate means of income for depositing cash.
Case was reopened after recording proper reason. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022, wherein addition of Rs.1 Crore was made in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property.
Assessee was a medical professional, filed his returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appeal concerned an addition of over Rs. 179 crore made by AO under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s hands.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
