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...
Assessee had filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring ₹20,89,430. The case was scrutinized for capital gains from agricultural land sales and cash deposits during demonetization.
The assessee was engaged in the business of providing works contract service and labour service. AO found that assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.62,10,000/- in the bank account during demonetization period.
Both the revenue authorities have accepted the books of accounts, book results could not be disturbed once it is admitted that cash sales are recorded in books and forming part of turnover of the business.
ITAT Chennai deletes addition of Rs.53.23 Lakh on cash deposits during demonetization and directs re-computation of income in Balu Vignesh case.
Assessee filed its return of income for the 2018-19 AY declaring a total of ₹12,33,640 and assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of “imports and exports”, and various notices were issued and served upon assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay of 244 days in filing of an appeal caused due to genuine hardship faced by the assessee is condonable. Accordingly, delay condoned due to bona fide reason being demonstrated.
AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required to be filed in the Income-tax Return for the assessment year.
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
During the assessment proceedings, AO provided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the Assessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 is sustained. Since, addition u/s 68 has been upheld, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums are to be added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure.
