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 ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
Karnataka High Court held that taxpayer cannot be permitted to retract voluntary disclosed income admitted in return of income filed nearly 14 months after the survey without giving evidence of coercion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 were invalid in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal. As the reopening was barred by limitation, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that once retail liquor sales were accepted and income estimated, cash deposits used for liquor purchases could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. The addition was deleted due to recorded business transactions.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier did not file an income tax return. Verified GST filings and inventory records established transaction genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of share purchase cost under Section 115BBE, arising from alleged bogus LTCG, is interlinked with the quantum issue.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition differs from the reasons recorded. Treating dividend as unexplained cash credit was beyond the scope of reopening.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
