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...
The writ petitioner company is non-deposit taking Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) having license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for functioning as a Micro Finance Institution (MFI) registered with RBI.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since AO has not made any independent investigation of fact. Accordingly, ad hoc disallowance @10% upheld to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
ITAT Delhi held that delay of 35 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) ought to be condoned since assessee has explained the sufficient reason for said delay. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit set aside as no additions made in the hands of investors confirms genuineness of investor and hence investment cannot be stated as bogus in hands of company.
During the impugned year, noting the fact that the assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016 of Rs.4,12,67,000/-, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)’s decision to add undisclosed income under Sec 50C in the case of Kavita Samtani Vs DCIT, relating to discrepancies in reported property sale value.
ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remitted the matter since addition confirmed by CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order as assessee didn’t appeared nor complied to the notices. Accordingly, matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
