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 ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an addition made under Section 69, ruling that in cases of alleged “on-money” payments found during a search, only the embedded profit component is taxable. Following the Gujarat High Court precedent, the Tribunal restricted the unexplained investment addition of Rs.1.25 lakh to just 30% (Rs.37,500).
Pune ITAT dismissed a firm’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s order to tax Rs 19.44 lakh in unexplained cash and stock found in a survey under the stringent Section 115BBE.
The Pune ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that the alleged unexplained investment transaction occurred in the earlier financial year. The ruling emphasizes the Assessing Officer’s duty to verify the correct assessment year before invoking Section 69, as liability must attach to the right period.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Tribunal restored issue of validity of reassessment under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that assessee raised legal ground for first time before ITAT.
Dismissing Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee’s ₹1.9 crore FDR was a renewal of an earlier deposit used as bank guarantee security and not a new unexplained investment under Section 69.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
ITAT Rajkot held that a one-day delay in filing objections before the DRP should not defeat justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that natural justice must prevail over technical lapses.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
