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 High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
ITAT Rajkot partly allowed appeal, directing that 90% of cash deposited during demonetisation be accepted as explained, with only 10% taxable under normal income tax.
ITAT held that a protective addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not survive once related substantive addition had been deleted in subsequent year. Ruling confirms that protective additions cannot stand independently when their basis no longer exists.
ITAT Jaipur ruled that ₹52.78 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-period cash deposits was unsustainable, citing reliable books of accounts and factual verification.
ITAT held that bank deposits consistent with declared fruit business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68; the addition of ₹1.29 crore was directed to be treated as genuine receipts.
Tribunal invalidated the reassessment because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii), rendering the Section 148 notice void.
The ITAT confirmed an addition of Rs. 28 lakh under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits made over four years. Burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to explain deposits.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
ITAT Bangalore set aside reassessment orders for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, ruling that failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act invalidates the proceedings.
