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....
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter wa...
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT Chennai held that merely opting for Vivad-Se-Vishwas does not end an appeal unless settlement is completed; dismissal by assumption was invalid and appeal was restored for merits adjudication.
The issue was whether reopening based only on portal information is valid. The Tribunal held that absence of independent inquiry and tangible material vitiates reassessment and nullifies the addition.
The tribunal held that any adjustment while processing a return under Section 143(1) requires prior intimation to the assessee. Disallowance made without issuing such notice is invalid in law.
The tribunal held that large cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be taxed as unexplained income when the assessee proves he acted only as a commission agent. Only commission income, and not gross deposits, is taxable in such cases.
The issue was dismissal of appeals for non-payment of admitted tax without hearing on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeals, holding that the assessee deserved an opportunity to explain advance tax liability.
The ITAT ruled that once the assessee establishes the source of investment, addition for unexplained investment cannot survive. Direct payment by a financier through demand draft explained the transaction.
The case examined taxation of a charitable entity when registration under Section 12A was unsettled. While scrutiny selection was upheld, the assessment was remanded to await the outcome of registration proceedings.
Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that estimating profits at 1% was excessive and moderated it to 0.50%.
