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 Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in statement of profit & loss account.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization confirmed by both AO and CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order. However, majority of cash deposits are prior to demonetization period. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh verification.
However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued and therefore, AO completed the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 as best judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and passed the assessment order.
ITAT Jaipur addresses tax rate dispute in Sadhwani Wood Products Pvt Ltd case, involving unaccounted cash sales and Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat condoned the delay of 159 days in filing of an appeal as delay in filing appeal is not intentional nor deliberate and assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for not filing an appeal on time.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act made without proper examination of the books of account and relevant financial records unjustified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
ITAT Bangalore allows Vikas Co-operative’s appeal, stating addition under Section 69A cannot be made solely on the basis of not accepting demonetized currency.
ITAT Bangalore directs a fresh hearing after IT notices likely ended up in spam, causing the assessee to miss compliance deadlines.
