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 Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Nagpur held that a 50-year lease is not a transfer under Section 2(47)(vi) where the transaction is only a lease and not an a...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad allowed Section 10(10B) exemption on BSNL VRS compensation, following coordinate bench rulings despite no claim in ...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that the lower authorities were wrong to confirm the addition for foreign currency found during the search, as the assessee provided a chart detailing various family trips abroad. The decision confirms that, in the absence of contrary evidence by the Revenue, a plausible explanation supported by travel records is enough to discharge the burden of proof.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.23 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had fully discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors. Since complete evidence (confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements) was filed and no adverse material was found, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal ruled that an HUF, the beneficial owner of the income, cant be denied TDS credit just because the tax was initially shown in the Kartas PAN. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify subsequent compliance with Rule 37BA(2) and the updated Form 26AS to prevent the Revenues unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits during demonetisation, sourced from verifiable housing loan withdrawals, were explained and not unexplained income. Following the P&H HC, the ITAT held that the retention of cash for construction, even for a long time, doesnt justify the addition when the source is proven.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by rejecting the explanation (withdrawal via bearer cheque) simply because the assessee had not used that method before. The ruling emphasized that the Department cannot reject a proven source unless it brings contrary evidence of an alternate undisclosed source.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that suspicion alone cannot lead to an addition under section 69A, especially when sales records and VAT returns were furnished. The ruling confirmed that high cash sales were justified as per the Government’s notification allowing petrol pumps to accept demonetised notes.
The Tribunal found the principles of natural justice were violated when the assessee, a villager unfamiliar with e-proceedings, was denied the opportunity to challenge the property’s stamp duty valuation and request a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
The ITAT deleted a ₹78 lakh addition made under Section 68 for alleged accommodation entries from two companies, ruling the issue was covered by multiple binding coordinate bench decisions. Following prior judgments, the Tribunal held that M/s Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. and related entities were genuine concerns, thus the cash credit addition could not be sustained.
This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
