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 grants stay of tax recovery in Siddhi Parag Patel vs ITO case. The dispute centers on unexplained land investments and tax demand revisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
Madras HC remands 2018-2019 assessment order, ruling insufficient time given to respond to Rs. 9.5 crore unexplained income show cause notice under Section 69A.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that both AO and First Appellate Authority failed to conduct examination of cash deposit during demonetisation period in the light of CBDT instructions and hence matter remanded to that extent.
Tax calculation under Section 115BBE is a rectifiable error under Section 154, not Section 263, as it’s not derived from an Assessment order
ITAT Raipur held that tax implication of the gift transaction shall arise in the year in which the said asset will be sold/transferred. Thus, addition based on the notional / fictitious entry of asset made in books of account unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as cash deposits during demonetization period duly recorded in books of account and source of cash deposits duly maintained.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as sale consideration of shares duly reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee.
