Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : A doctrinal analysis of unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditure under Sections 68–69D. Explains burden of proof a...
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 : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
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 ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were prope...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment addit...
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that property payments were properly explained with bank records and affidavits. Additions under Section 69 for cash deposit and stamp duty were deleted.
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 deleted ₹6.15 lakh penny stock LTCG addition, holding investigation report and abnormal price rise insufficient without direct evidence linking assessee to accommodation entries.
Reassessment based solely on investigation inputs about penny stocks was rejected. The Tribunal held that documented transactions through bank and demat accounts sufficiently explained the investment source.
ITAT deleted ₹14.74 lakh addition as identical source was accepted in spouse’s case. Alleged on-money payment lacked corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted the ₹14.70 lakh addition made under Section 69, holding that the NRI assessee had adequately explained the source of investment in property through documented overseas remittances routed partly via his mothers bank account.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Sec 69 addition for alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and pen-drive data without cross-examination or corroboration are invalid evidence.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
