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...
ITAT Mumbai condoned 75-day delay in filing appeal, recognizing assessee’s illiteracy and reliance on tax consultant, allowing fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte dismissal of the AY 2018-19 appeal, restoring the matter to CIT(A) for merits-based hearing. The assessee was allowed to present evidence regarding ₹3.74 crore unexplained investment and estimated profits.
Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited oversight over critical digital systems.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed when no undisclosed income is found during search operations. Loose documents alone do not justify penalty.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
Reopening notice under Section 148 was held invalid as the AO ignored co-purchasers’ contributions and granted mechanical approval under Section 151 without application of mind. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment and associated additions null and void.
Gauhati High Court held that arrest in fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC] cannot be termed as illegal since the arresting authority has complied with all the mandates provided by the CGST Act, 2017 and the BNSS, 2023.
The Tribunal held that the ₹2.5 Cr flat investment was fully explained through agreement details and a DHFL housing loan, leaving no basis for an addition. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remanded for fresh examination since the foundation for concealment no longer survived.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident investments sourced from foreign salary cannot be treated as unexplained income, deleting ₹2 crore addition under Section 69.
The assessee showed that the ₹1.11 crore payment was an advance toward a bank-auctioned property, fully supported by bank transfers and later formalised via a registered deed. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot attract section 69. The addition was therefore deleted.
