Income Tax : The Tribunal held that taxing total gross winnings without examining expenditure and loss components violates principles of fairne...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified e...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remai...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening....
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period were invalid. Following the Supreme Courts ruling on reassessment timelines, the entire reopening and resulting additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the mandatory faceless regime under Sections 144B and 151A. Non-compliance with the prescribed faceless procedure renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
The issue was whether settled losses could be ignored in a search assessment without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that the AO must start from the last assessed income and allow already determined losses.
The issue was erroneous recomputation of LTCG causing double taxation. The Tribunal held that credit for LTCG already declared must be given and indexation cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Rejecting contradictory treatment, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the lender’s scrutiny while taxing the borrower under section 68. The addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed that post-2021 reassessment notices must strictly comply with amended section 151. Non-compliance with the specified approving authority deprives the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding a completed scrutiny assessment. The decision clarifies that remand powers apply only to Section 144 assessments, not regular ones.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside an addition made only on documents seized from a builder during search proceedings. The ruling underscores that independent evidence against the assessee is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from genuine sales already recorded in books cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. The key takeaway is that such additions amount to impermissible double taxation.
