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 held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
Court held that the order confirming fraudulent ITC and penalties is appealable under Section 107, granting petitioner time to file an appeal by December 2025.
ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi remitted a case where CIT(A) upheld additions without examining available evidence. The ruling reinforces that authorities must fully consider documents and explanations before confirming unexplained investments.
AO had added ₹11,38,000/- towards the amount paid to a builder — ₹8,00,000/- by cheque & ₹3,38,000/- in cash — treating it as unexplained. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition on the ground that Assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, violates natural justice. The ₹60 lakh on-money allegation was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld annulment of a ₹1.73 crore assessment, ruling that Section 148 notice was issued in name of a person who had died four years earlier. Tribunal affirmed that proceedings against a deceased person are a fatal jurisdictional defect and void ab initio.
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly accepted excess stock and cash disclosed during survey as business income after enquiry. Section 115BBE was not applicable, and PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was invalid.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
