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 Delhi held that addition towards excess stock merely on the basis of recorded statements and without any corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales is untenable in law. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as revenue failed to prove that cash sales are fictitious/ bogus.
ITAT Delhi held that approval granted u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act by the superior authority in mechanical manner has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. Thus, assessment order in consequence to such inexplicable approval lacks legality.
In the case of Anil Champalal Jain vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai), learn why Mumbai ITAT ruled that cash deposits during demonetization alone cannot justify income addition without clear evidence of accounting errors. Read the full text of the order for detailed insights.
Read the detailed ITAT Chennai order on Rameshlal Kailash Vs ITO for AY 2017-18. Money lending business income added, upheld as business income despite challenges. Full text of the order included.
Merely because certain cash was deposited in the specified bank notes by the assessee during the demonetization period will not make the assessee tainted party when the very same transaction are being made by the assessee in the part as well as in the future.
Discover the ITAT Chennai verdict on Santhilal Jain Vijay Kumar Vs ITO, addressing taxation on excess stock and unexplained marriage expenses. Read the full case analysis.
If AO adopts a plausible view, even if two views are possible, the assessment cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
Understand Parmod Singla Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) case on excess stock surrendered during survey and its tax implications under Sections 69, 69A, and 115BBE.
Read the detailed analysis of the ITAT Chandigarh verdict on DDK Spinning Mills vs DCIT, focusing on the implications of Section 69B and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
