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...
Delhi High Court held that benefit of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act available even in case of addition of unsubstantiated share capital into the account of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act.
Read the full text of the ITAT Bangalore order on Aijaz Ahmed Suri Vs ITO regarding demonetization deposits. Analysis and conclusion included.
Read the full text of the order of ITAT Bangalore regarding the dispute between BMM Ispat Limited and ACIT over unsecured loan sources. Detailed analysis and conclusion provided.
ITAT Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not considered the stamp duty valuation of the property on the date of agreement, which was in 2015. As per the proviso to the section, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should have been taken into account.
ITAT Chandigarh held that excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act as the same is undeclared business income and not unexplained investment.
Bangalore ITAT’s ruling on cash deposits during demonetization raises questions on verification methods. Learn about the case between ITO and Shri Chatrapati Shivaji.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition invoking the deeming provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unjustified as nature and source of undisclosed income/ investment duly explained by the assessee.
New Delhi ITAT rules that no addition can be made under Sec 69 if the difference in stock found during survey and recorded in books is reconciled. Detailed analysis of Ultimate Creations Vs ACIT.
In Bharat Agro Industries Vs DCIT, New Delhi ITAT questions the logic of treating sales as bogus when purchases are genuine and stock is accepted.
Once an appeal is lodged with CIT(A), the PCIT’s authority to revise assessment under Section 263 is circumscribed – Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
