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 Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The issue was whether reassessment was valid without proper service of mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh examination, holding that the jurisdictional issue requires reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus agricultural income taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to re-examine evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
ITAT set aside the addition made under Section 68 due to incomplete verification of a large gift transaction. It remanded the case for fresh examination with proper evidence and opportunity.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The ITAT Mumbai held that adjustments under Section 143(1) cannot be made without issuing prior intimation to the taxpayer. As CPC failed to provide such notice or reasons, the adjustment and resulting demand were set aside.
The ITAT Raipur held that the assessee had already disclosed the sale of the old car in the return of income and paid tax on the profit from the transaction. Since the sale consideration and profit were recorded and taxed, the Tribunal noted that there was no loss to the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares after holding them for nearly ten years could not be treated as a bogus penny stock transaction due to lack of evidence of manipulation.
